Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

SUGAR INDUSTRY BILL.

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred pursuant to the Order of the House of 25th November, the Standing Orders, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Sugar Industry Bill.

GRAND UNION CANAL COMPANY.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Dennis Herbert): I beg to move,
That the Grand Union Canal Company be relieved from the obligation to promote not later than the Session of 1946 a Bill to consolidate the Acts relating to the several parts of their undertaking and the obligation to promote not later than the Session of 1944 an Amending Bill with a view to facilitating the task of consolidation, being obligations to which the Company are subject by virtue of a promise given in the proceedings before the Committee to which the Regent's Canal and Dock Company (Grand Junction Canal Purchase) Bill was referred in the year 1928 as varied by resolutions passed by this House on the 12th day of July, 1932, the 27th day of July, 1937, and the 27th day of June, 1940.
This is rather an unusual form of Motion, and, therefore, I am obliged to say a word about it. It is asking the House to release the Grand Union Canal Company from an obligation which they entered into as a Parliamentary undertaking to introduce a Bill to consolidate their numerous Acts. It is rather a long story, because the original undertaking was given as long ago as 1928, and the House from time to time has extended the time for introducing that Bill. Latterly there was added an undertaking to introduce an amending Bill before introducing a consolidating Bill. In normal times I should have expected to have put the matter down for debate, and I can make no complaint if the House wishes me to do so now, but I venture to hope that in these days the House will probably find it convenient to

pass this Motion in the few minutes which are available for unopposed Private Business. The reasons why the request is made depend to some extent on the war situation, but not entirely so. I have gone into the matter very carefully with my official adviser. I required a statement from the undertaking as to the case for the request, and I afterwards had an interview with the Parliamentary agent, the solicitor and the secretary of the company. I am fully satisfied that it is quite impracticable for this to be done, at any rate during the war period. I am satisfied also, though there might be differences of opinion on it, that it will really be impracticable for them to do it even after the war.
If I may put the main reason very shortly, it is that the undertaking has grown so enormously by reason of other amalgamations that the original idea of consolidating their Acts, which looked a fairly simple matter, has grown to be something very much bigger. The result of that is that they are asking, not for an extension, but to be released from this obligation. I can give the House the most absolute assurance that if they pass this Motion, they will not—that goes almost as a matter of course—be prejudiced in any way as far as Parliament or the power of this House after the war is concerned to deal with the matter if they think it desirable and necessary to take up the whole of that much neglected business of the waterways of this country. That being the case, if hon. Members will bear that in mind, I venture to hope that they will release the company from their obligation. By doing so, they will save the company a considerable amount of expenditure, trouble and work which must be continued from year to year so long as they are under this obligation.
In the meantime, their system of waterways is doing very valuable national work at the present time, but not, I am afraid, so good or so efficient as it might have been if we had paid more attention to the canals in the past. At any rate, they are working to their full capacity, and it may interest the House to know, although it is rather a sad thing to have to say, that this undertaking has not for several years past been making any profits. Some years ago, it is true, they were able to pay a small dividend, but for some years past they have not been able to pay even their preference dividend.


Therefore, there is no case of doing anything to enable anything like illegitimate or excessive profits to be made. It is, I think, clearly to the advantage of the country generally that this undertaking should be free from a hampering obligation. It will not prejudice Parliament in their powers to deal with this matter after the war if they may desire to do so.

Mr. Thorne: The Union Canal Company carry a great deal of merchandise. Do I understand that this Motion is for the purpose of helping them in that direction?

The Chairman of Ways and Means: It is to help them in that direction to this extent, that so long as they are under this obligation they have to continue a certain amount of work with a view ultimately to carrying out the obligation and that means the employment of a larger staff and the expenditure of money.

Mr. Tinker: I should like to ask the Chairman of Ways and Means to give an assurance that this Motion does not mean shelving the whole business for all time and that it is merely a war emergency. In matters like this we are willing to do a lot of things because a war is on, but we do not want the position to be taken advantage of by somebody saying, "You passed certain things during that period, and they cannot be raised again on account of Parliamentary procedure." I want to protect our rights for the future, and when the war is over I take it that there will be full opportunity to raise this question again if we so desire.

Mr. Mander: The Chairman of Ways and Means made it clear that this was a permanent abandonment by the company of their obligation. I do not follow why a Motion cannot be passed dealing with the war period. The Chairman of Ways and Means indicated that while he held one view, it may be possible to hold a different view as to what is desirable after the war. For that reason I do not understand why for the post-war period the obligation could not be left open.

Mr. Ammon: While I do not intend to oppose the Motion, I think that we should enter a caveat, because, if the legislation be so complicated that it is difficult to undertake

it, what are the ordinary public to do in the matter? It rather seems that the company are taking advantage of the war in order to avoid an obligation that has been placed upon them and that they have no wish to spend the money. I think that we are going to get a rather bad deal out of it, and we should enter a caveat so that in post-war conditions this matter can be taken up again with perfect fairness.

Mr. Charles Williams: Although this is a necessary measure now, many of us feel, looking at it from the point of view of post-war conditions, that we should not do anything which may in other cases and for other purposes be used as a precedent after the war.

Mr. Douglas: I understand that the proposal is to relieve the company of all obligations—

Mr. Mander: On a point of Order. May I ask whether it is possible for this Debate to consume the whole of Question time?

Mr. Speaker: This Debate can only last till a quarter of an hour after the meeting of the House.

Mr. Douglas: It is proposed to relieve this Company of the obligation for all time to consolidate their Acts. I suggest that the proper course at the moment is to suspend the obligation for a period of years and to let it be considered again after the war. If this legislation is so complicated that, as the Chairman of Ways and Means has said, it is almost impossible for the Company to prepare a consolidating Act, how is the general public to understand it, and how is the public to be protected?

It being the hour appointed for the conclusion of unopposed Private Business, the Debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon the next Sitting Day.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL WAR EFFORT (MARRIED WOMEN).

Mr. Mander: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will endeavour to make arrangements in connection with the direc-


tion of married women into industry that they shall be granted reasonable time off when their husbands are on leave?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): I would refer my hon. Friend to the Reply which I gave on this subject to the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) on 1st October; and would add that when the wives of men serving in the Forces or in the Merchant Navy enter employment away from home they do so voluntarily and not under direction.

Mr. Mander: In view of the very great importance of this matter and the very natural and strong feelings which exist, could not a regulation be made that when soldiers are on leave, particularly from overseas, their wives, if they are working on munitions, should be given time off?

Mr. Bevin: Apart from any question of issuing a regulation I think that course would be impracticable.

Mr. Mander: Could not employers be strongly advised to do this?

Mr. Bevin: Advice has been given to them in the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE.

DETAINEES AND INTERNEES (INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS).

Miss Eleanor Rathbone: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has considered the case for exemption of persons liable to unemployment insurance, whether British subjects or aliens, from the payment of arrears which have accumulated while they have been interned or otherwise confined in the interest of national security without trial?

Mr. Bevin: Arrears of unemployment insurance contributions do not accumulate in the circumstances stated. As regards the benefit position of such persons, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. David Adams) on 16th December.

Miss Rathbone: Having noted the reply, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that this affects a really considerable number of persons whose release from internment shows that they are regarded as reliable and would be available for employment, and will he

consult with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary who, I am sure, will be able to confirm that that is so?

Miss Rathbone: asked the Minister of Health whether he has considered the case for exemption of persons liable to National Health Insurance, including insurance for widows' and orphans' pensions, whether British subjects or aliens, from the payment of arrears which have accumulated while they have been interned or otherwise confined in the interests of national security, without trial?

Mr. Lipson: asked the Minister of Health whether he will arrange that refugees, who were interned under general order, shall be excused payment of National Health Insurance contributions for the period of their internment?

The Minister of Health (Mr. Ernest Brown): The possibility of excusing the arrears accumulated during the period of detention of these persons has been fully considered, but I am unable to agree that such arrears should be excused in full. As stated in the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. David Adams) on 16th December, Regulations are being made under which these persons may safeguard their health insurance and pensions rights by paying, within a reasonable period after their release, contributions at a reduced rate for the period of detention.

Miss Rathbone: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the resources of these people are so much depleted through their detention, through no fault of their own, that it is very difficult for them to pay off arrears?

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend will realise that we are trying to meet that. These people are being treated very favourably in being allowed to redeem their arrears at reduced rates.

Mr. Lipson: Can my right hon. Friend say what the reduced rates are?

Mr. Brown: The reduced rates are: men, 1s. 4d., and women, 11d., against 1s. 10d. and 1s. 5d.

Mr. Buchanan: Would the right hon. Gentleman look at a case of an internee who is ill while interned, and who, if he had been at liberty, would have been a recipient, and in that case excuse the arrears?

Mr. Brown: It may be that other points would come in there. I would not like to answer that offhand.

FIRE SERVICE.

Lieutenant Butcher: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will continue to use the services of local authorities for the payment of wages and accounts payable by the National Fire Service, or whether he proposes to establish a separate financial branch of the Fire Service?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The National Fire Service organisation includes provision for matters such as the payment of wages, accounts for goods supplied and other running expenses and I hope the transfer of this part of the financial and accounting work will be effected shortly. The payment of accounts in connection with the repair and maintenance of buildings, a function which remains for the most part with the local authorities for the present, will remain in their hands for the time being. I should like to take this opportunity to say how grateful I am to the local authorities and their officers for the great assistance they have given and are giving in this way.

Lieutenant Butcher: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that, during the war, separate finance arrangements will not create an enormous waste of man-power and labour? Why not carry on with the present system for the duration of the war?

Mr. Morrison: I naturally gave that point favourable consideration, but there is the difficulty that the fire force areas extend over many local authority areas and the conscription of men does not make the position any easier. Furthermore, local authorities are anxious to be relieved of this work. Otherwise, I should have been in favour of the suggestion made by my hon. and gallant Friend.

Lieutenant Butcher: Will my right hon. Friend continue to watch how the situation develops?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir.

WOMEN PERSONNEL.

Mr. Brooke: asked the Home Secretary whether he will investigate what proportion of full-time women Civil Defence workers are working shifts which amount to the minimum of 48 hours per week and

no longer; and whether, in view of the growing shortage of woman-power, he will now require a rearrangement of shifts and a longer minimum week, combined with an adjustment of pay, so that women who are surplus to requirements on the new basis may be set free for other forms of war work?

Mr. H. Morrison: The whole subject is under examination.

INTERNEES, AUSTRALIA.

Miss Rathbone: asked the Home Secretary whether he can make a statement showing how the prospects of bringing refugees interned in Australia back to this country or sending them to the' United States of America when qualified for entry there are affected by the war in the Far East; and what are now the prospects of their being released for temporary employment within Australia in cases where they are considered on security grounds to be eligible for release?

Mr. H. Morrison: I regret that I am not in a position to make any statement on either of the issues raised by my hon. Friend.

Miss Rathbone: In view of the obvious difficulties in the way of bringing these people back from Australia in present circumstances, could not the right hon. Gentleman make a real effort to rouse the people of Australia to understand the amount of really valuable war effort that they are wasting in respect of the people who are interned and who are longing to take part in that war effort in order, in their own words, to "have a go" at Hitler?

Mr. Morrison: It would be unwise for the House or for myself publicly to intervene in the immigration policy of the Commonwealth of Australia. It is a tricky subject, and the Commonwealth of Australia has strong views about it. I do not think that course would be wise, and the moment is inappropriate, in view of the difficulties with which Australia is faced, for me to attempt to rouse Australia on this subject. Australia is at the moment roused about something else.

SPIES (EXECUTIONS).

Commander Locker - Lampson: asked the Home Secretary how many Germans have been convicted and executed as spies and how many British subjects since the outbreak of war?

Mr. H. Morrison: All the information which can properly be given in this matter has already been made public.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Ought not Sir Oswald Mosley to be tried and convicted?

REGIONAL OFFICES.

Major Lyons: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings whether a decision has yet been reached as to the accommodation of all regional offices in one building in a city of which he has been informed; whether his attention has been directed by the local authorities concerned to the large, partly erected premises, proposed as county offices immediately adjoining that city, and upon which further building work has ceased; and whether he will consider the acquisition of those premises and not commence the erection of any new offices with this site standing idle?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings (Mr. Hicks): It is not proposed to concentrate all the regional offices in the way suggested; but the possibility of using the half-finished building instead of erecting temporary offices is under consideration with representatives of the county council. No scheme has yet been agreed.

Major Lyons: May I take it that there has been no decision reached about these premises? Will my hon. Friend bear in mind at all times the great cost of erecting new offices?

Mr. Hicks: No decision has been taken yet. Full consultation is taking place with representatives of the county council, and the points made by my hon. and gallant Friend are under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

CIVIL DEFENCE.

Mr. Wedgwood: asked the Secretary of State for India whether any steps are being taken to establish Home Guards in India on the British models?

The Secretary of State for India (Mr. Amery): There is nothing precisely similar to the Home Guard in India, where conditions and needs differ from those in this country. Opportunities for

voluntary part-time service have been provided hitherto for both Europeans and Indians in the Indian Auxiliary Force and the Indian Territorial Force, the latter of which has now for the most part been converted into regular battalions. Despite its civilian nature I must also mention the Civic Guards, an organisation initiated in the various Provinces in June of last year, to assist the regular police and to undertake duties connected with Air Raid Precautions, anti-sabotage and various other important aspects of internal defence.

Mr. Wedgwood: May I ask, in the first place, whether that Answer applies to Burma? Is anything more being done in Burma at the present time? Secondly, I would ask whether there is any sort of demand in India itself for Civil Defence measures such as there was in this country?

Mr. Amery: As regards Burma, I should like to have notice of the Question. With regard to India, there has been a demand of a general character in some quarters.

Mr. Sloan: asked the Secretary of State for India what action has been taken for the protection of the people of Bengal, Behar and Assam, large parts of which will shortly be within the range of Japanese bombing planes; and what arrangements have been made for shelter accommodation and feeding in the event of bombing operations?

Mr. Amery: I am unable to give details of the Air Raid Precaution measures in the Provinces mentioned, but I can assure the hon. Member that over recent months the Civil Defence Department of the Central Government, whose function is to stimulate and co-ordinate the efforts of the Provincial authorities, has been very active in extending and strengthening local organisations. For this purpose it has obtained the services as instructors of officers with practical experience of air raid conditions in this country. I understand that conditions in India are held by expert opinion to be unsuitable in general for covered shelter on an extensive scale but that in certain areas trench shelters have been provided. In the main, resort will probably be had to dispersal of the population from crowded areas to temporary camps. Plans have been made, for example in Calcutta, for the relief of people rendered homeless.

Mr. Sloan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in this area there are some 80,000,000 people who have not even housing accommodation, and how does he expect to protect them against bombing raids?

MR. JAWAHARLAL NEHRU.

Mr. Sloan: asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that at a public meeting held at Nagpur the Deputy Commissioner described Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru as a Quisling; that there was such an uproar at the meeting that the Deputy Commissioner was forced to leave; and whether he intends taking any action in the matter?

Mr. Amery: I have no information on this matter, but am making inquiries and will inform the hon. Member of the result.

CONSTITUTION.

Mr. Sloan: asked the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the grave developments in the Eastern situation, he is prepared to make a statement with a view to an immediate settlement of the Indian question?

Mr. Gordon Macdonald: asked the Seretary of State for India what action is being taken by His Majesty's Governmenut to take the quickest and fullest advantage of the changed position in the Far East, both outside and inside India; and whether it is intended to make an immediate and wholehearted effort to end the present unsatisfactory state of affairs throughout India?

Mr. Amery: The hon. Members will no doubt have seen in the Press the moving and earnest appeal for unity and co-operation made by the Viceroy to the people of India in his speech before the Associated Chambers of Commerce on 15th December. I would only add that this appeal has my whole-hearted support.

Mr. MacDonald: Seeing that similar appeals in the past have been ineffectual, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied, in view of the present position in the Far East, that there is not great danger of a large amount of Fifth-Column work going on in India and of our war effort there being undermined by such work?

Mr. Amery: No, Sir. I am not aware of that danger.

Mr. Sloan: Has the right hon. gentleman seen the statement made by the President of Congress, and is there any change in the attitude of His Majesty's Government such as would enable the President of Congress and his followers to change their attitude?

Mr. Amery: We are doing all we can in the matter.

Mr. Shinwell: Instead of talking of moving appeals, would it not be better if a first move came from His Majesty's Government?

Mr. Amery: Any moves would naturally come from the Viceroy, and the Viceroy has done all in his power to bring the parties together.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister not prepared to invite the leaders of Congress to begin setting up an independent Constitution for India? It is the one sure way of getting the Indian people interested.

MOTOR VEHICLE INDUSTRY.

Mr. Ammon: asked the Secretary of State for India whether, having regard to the war situation in the Far East and the threat to India arising therefrom, he will reconsider the proposals already brought to his notice for the establishment of a motor transport manufacturing industry?

Mr. Amery: I am afraid that the extension of the war has not increased the resources available for the establishment of an automobile industry in India or afforded grounds for reconsideration of a decision taken solely from the point of view of securing India's maximum contribution to the war effort.

Mr. Ammon: But surely it would be an advantage in these times to develop any sort of industry which has some relation to the war effort? The right hon. gentleman had suggestions submitted to him from India, but they would seem to have received only the most cursory consideration.

Mr. Amery: The matter has been most carefully considered, and the conclusion arrived at is that any attempt to set up this industry now would divert both labour and machinery which are more urgently needed for the war.

Mr. Ammon: Is not this another case of too long delay? This proposal was submitted months ago.

Mr. Amery: I cannot agree that there has been delay.

Mr. Silverman: Could the right hon. Gentleman say what were the considerations which led to the conclusion to which he has referred?

Mr. Amery: The proposal submitted was one for starting this industry after the war. The Government of India concluded that it could not profitably give the necessary priority in regard to the provision of machinery and labour.

WELSH CHURCH COMMISSION.

Sir Robert Bird: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the beneficiaries under the Welsh Church Acts view with alarm the prospect of the re-appointment of the Welsh Church Commissioners, after the expiry of their term in November, 1942; and whether he will consider introducing legislation to wind up the Commission or appoint new commissioners?

Mr. H. Morrison: The answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative, and as to the second and third parts I cannot now say what action it may be desirable to take when the continuance of the Commission comes up for review in December next year.

Sir R. Bird: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the beneficiaries under the Welsh Church Acts are rather discontented with him and with what they regard as the dilatory methods of the Commission, and in particular are discontented at finding that the expenses of the Welsh Church Commission exceed £1,000 per month?

Mr. Morrison: This body is faced with a very complicated task imposed upon it by Parliament. I am anxious, of course, that it shall proceed with all practicable speed and will do anything I can to assist that end, but it is a complicated business.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: When will the right hon. Gentleman be able to get down to this business? Is he not aware that there is great dissatisfaction in Wales over the whole position?

Mr. Morrison: I have answered all the Questions that have been put to me.

Sir R. Bird: asked the Home Secretary whether the Welsh Church Commissioners have any scheme of superannuation for the personnel of the Commission to provide against the loss of their employment when the Commission is wound up, or for their absorption into the ranks of the permanent Civil Service?

Mr. Morrison: There is no special scheme of superannuation for the personnel of the Welsh Church Commission, who have all been engaged on the understanding that their employment is on a temporary basis. I understand however that the Treasury has agreed with the Commissioners that they may award gratuities to members of the staff in accordance with Section 4 of the Superannuation Act, 1887, under which gratuities are calculated for unestablished Civil Servants. As regards employment in the Civil Service when the Commission ceases, an endeavour will be made to absorb the staff into the Service. No guarantee can be given as the matter must be considered in the light of circumstances then prevailing, and must be subject to the suitability of the officer concerned.

Sir R. Bird: I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, which, I am sure, will give great satisfaction to those concerned.

MOTORING OFFENCES (PROSECUTIONS).

Mr. Lipson: asked the Home Secretary whether he will give for the years 1939 and 1940 the respective numbers of motorists prosecuted and convicted for the following offences: manslaughter, dangerous driving, driving under the influence of drink, exceeding a speed limit, neglect of traffic directions and failure to stop after an accident?

Mr. H. Morrison: I regret that these particulars are not available, though it will be possible to give certain figures for the year 1939 in relation to dangerous driving and similar offences under the headings which appear in Table C of the annual volume of criminal statistics, which was last published in respect of the year 1938. I will send these figures to my hon. and gallant Friend when they have been extracted.

Mr. Lipson: In view of the number of accidents on the roads, would the right hon. Gentleman consider whether these figures could be made available in future?

Mr. Morrison: I will consider it, but my hon. Friend will no doubt appreciate the fact that, with the existing pressure upon Government Departments, we have to be careful not to spread our efforts too wide.

ASSAULT CASE, SOUTH-WESTERN POLICE COURT.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Home Secretary whether he can give any information about the case of a young girl who was in the care of a woman charged, at the South-Western Police Court, with assaulting this girl of 16 years of age; and whether he has any statement to make on the criticism passed on the East Sussex County Council by the stipendiary of the police court?

Mr. H. Morrison: My hon. Friend no doubt has in mind a case in which on 14th December a woman was fined £25 and ordered to pay 10 guineas costs on conviction of an offence of aggravated assault on a 16-year-old girl who had been employed by her as a domestic servant. I understand that the girl had been in the care of the East Sussex County Council, but on the limited information which I have succeeded in obtaining in the short time available I am not in a position to make any comment on this aspect of the matter. I am informed that the girl is to be brought before a juvenile court within the next few days under the Children and Young Persons Act, as a young person in need of care and protection.

Mr. Thorne: Would my right hon. Friend use his good offices to see that this young girl is placed under proper control and is put into the hands of a decent person?

Mr. Morrison: We will keep the case under observation and endeavour to keep my hon. Friend informed.

MILK ADULTERATION (PENALTIES, WALES).

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has

been drawn to adjudications by the justices at St. Clears, on 5th December last, whereby the same fine of £1 was imposed upon a defendant for adulterating eight and a half gallons of milk with two gallons of water and upon another defendant, a widow living upon 18s. per week public assistance, for a black-out offence; and whether he will circularise justices with a view to getting greater uniformity in fines?

Mr. H. Morrison: In the Home Office memorandum giving advice to justices on the subject of fines, special attention was called to the importance of taking account of the means of poor people. In the absence of any information as to the circumstances which may have been before the court in these two cases, it would not be right for me to comment on the action of the justices, but as regards the first of the offences specified in the Question, I would refer to the answer which I gave on nth December to a Question by my hon. Friend, the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. Pearson).

Mr. Hughes: Will not my right hon. Friend investigate more fully the circumstances of these two offences? Will he be prepared to take some action if the summary is found to be justified upon the fuller investigations?

Mr. Morrison: If further information is available, I will look at it, but the Home Secretary must not become a substitute for the courts of law. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad to note that on that point I have the concurrence of hon. Members.

PRISONER'S ESCAPE. DARTMOOR (OFFICERS' PUNISHMENT).

Mr. David Adams: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the recent escape of Thursion from Dartmoor was due to the relaxation of the regulations concerning the treatment of prisoners who had previously escaped from prison; that four prison officer:; were punished as the result of the escape; and whether he will consider remitting the punishments that have been imposed on these officers in favour of taking appropriate action against higher officials of the prison service who were responsible for the decision not to apply the appropriate rules in Thurston's case, thereby assisting in this prisoner's escape?

Mr. H. Morrison: I know of no foundation for the suggestion that officers at Dartmoor Prison were instructed or authorised to relax in Thurston's case any of the regulations as to the treatment of prisoners who have previously escaped. Disciplinary awards were made against three officers for failing to carry out certain prescribed precautions, and I am not aware of any reason for reconsidering these awards.

Mr. Adams: Is the Minister aware of the deep sense of injustice among officers at the punishment that has been inflicted, and of the allegation that is being made, according to the information supplied to me that the special regulations which ought to have been put into operation against the escaped prisoners were not put into operation by higher officers, while junior officers have been punished?

Mr. Morrison: I think my hon. Friend is wrongly informed. As a matter of fact the punishment was quite light and I do not think that any feeling of injustice could be justified.

MILITARY SERVICE (POLICE).

Commander Locker-Lampson: asked the Home Secretary how many police under 40 years of age are serving in the police forces of every kind in the United Kingdom?

Mr. H. Morrison: It would be contrary to the national interest to give figures which would assist the enemy to piece together information about the disposal of our man-power.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Could not the more elderly police be used to arrest us in war-time?

Mr. Morrison: We have already given up a considerable number of the younger members of the police force. In view of the war, the possibility of air raids and other difficulties which arise in war-time it must be remembered that if the British police force became a force of elderly men it would be very bad for the country.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

PROFESSIONS (ENTRANCE PREMIUMS).

Mr. Bower: asked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been drawn to the extent to which

entry into certain of the professions is being restricted owing to the inability of pupils' parents to pay the necessary premiums, and whether he proposes to take any steps to deal with the matter?

The President of the Board of Education (Mr. Butler): I have recently seen correspondence in the Press on this matter. It is difficult for my Department to alleviate the position.

Mr. Bower: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take any steps to implement the recommendations of the Departmental Committee that local government officers should not ask their pupils for any premiums?

Mr. Butler: I will certainly look into the point.

EVACUATED SECONDARY SCHOOL BOYS (ACCOMMODATION).

Mr. Lipson: asked the President of the Board of Education whether he proposes to use some of the vacant places in public schools for evacuated secondary school boys in areas where the secondary schools are already full to overflowing?

Mr. Butler: As my hon. Friend is aware the majority of the public schools do not come within my jurisdiction, but I am informed that a certain number of public boarding schools have already provided accommodation for evacuated secondary school parties. I have no doubt that others will be prepared to make a similar offer, if the need arises and circumstances permit.

Mr. Lipson: In view of the fact that there are secondary schools where the education and the health of those present are endangered, will not the right hon. Gentleman consult with some public school headmasters whether they can help to relieve the pressure?

Mr. Butler: I am willing to consider any facts brought to my notice.

Mr. A. Bevan: Is it necessary to ask the permission of the public schools whether they will put the available accommodation at the disposal of the right hon. Gentleman? Has he not power to take these public schools over, as other forms of property are being taken?

Mr. Butler: As I have informed the House, if circumstances demand further accommodation for secondary school scholars, no doubt, if the facts are brought to the notice of the public schools,


they will take the necessary action. If facts are brought to my attention, I will look into them.

Mr. Bevan: That is not an answer to my question. I submit that in view of the shortage of accommodation in secondary schools, the right hon. Gentleman should find out what accommodation is available in public schools and take it over.

Mr. Butler: I have stated that the majority of the public schools do not fall within my jurisdiction, but if circumstances are brought to my attention in which secondary school scholars are suffering, I will certainly take any steps possible to alleviate their position.

INFANTS.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: asked the President of the Board of Education how many children, under the age of seven, are now not receiving full-time education?

Mr. Butler: The returns received from local education authorities are not in a form which enables me to give my hon. Friend the particulars he desires.

OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr. Tinker: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that Mrs. Sullivan, of Leigh, has had £5 8s. deducted from her pension and she claims she has not had any relief from the Assistance Board; and will he have inquiries made to find out why this was done?

Mr. E. Brown: The deduction to which my hon. Friend refers was made, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12 of the Old Age and Widows' Pensions Act, 1940, from arrears of old age pension awarded to Mrs. Sullivan for the period between her sixtieth birthday and the date of her husband's death.

Mr. Tinker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this lady was bombed out from her home and that her husband died from the effects of the shock? Surely in a case like that something ought to be done.

Mr. Brown: I have, as my hon. Friend knows, written a long letter about it. The hon. Member also knows what the difficulty was. A considerable amount of

inquiry was necessary because this lady did not fill up the forms correctly. [Interruption.] It is a fact. He knows also that we have shown a very sympathetic attitude about the matter, and that she is now receiving a supplementary pension of 8s. a week. It the hon. Member wishes to put any further point forward, I shall be very glad to consider it.

Major Lyons: Is it the intention to suspend any other such deductions?

Mr. Brown: There are, of course, certain provisions, namely, the Regulations passed in 1940, which govern the whole matter.

WAR-TIME DAY NURSERIES.

Mr. Lindsay: asked the Minister of Health how many war-time day nurseries have now been established?

Mr. E. Brown: The last monthly return, on 30th November, showed 195 war-time day nurseries in operation, a further 209 approved and a further 264 in preparation.

Mr. Lindsay: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that the only test of his machinery is the number open, and is he aware that even in the city where he and the President of the Board of Education live the local education authority and the child welfare committee have only just met after two years of warfare, and will he hand the question over to authorities which really understand the position?

Mr. Brown: I will do no such thing. As a matter of fact, my hon. Friend should realise that he should be the last person to talk about two years ago.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

INCOME TAX-FREE SALARIES AND EMOLUMENTS.

Mr. Silverman: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many persons paid from public funds are in receipt of salaries and/or other emoluments free of Income Tax; what is the annual loss to the Treasury thereby occasioned; whether this policy or practice will be discontinued; and whether there have been any recent changes?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): Except in the case of a


limited and relatively very small number of cases, persons in receipt of salaries or other emoluments paid from public funds are liable to Income Tax in the ordinary way, and there has been no recent change of policy in that regard. This rule is only departed from for wholly exceptional reasons, and the cases are financially insignificant.

Mr. Silverman: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many such exceptional cases there are, and what is the amount involved?

Sir K. Wood: There are very few, and I did not. want to trouble the Departments to give me the returns. The cost to the Treasury is insignificant.

Mr. Silverman: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why there should be any such cases?

Sir K. Wood: There is a certain number of cases of non-British persons whose services are being utilised for war purposes and who have come over and are helping us.

Mr. Silverman: Why should they not pay Income Tax like everybody else?

Sir K. Wood: They came over here to help us.

BRITISH SUBJECTS ABROAD (BLOCKED ACCOUNTS).

Mr. Mander: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many accounts of British nationals, who were resident in the United Kingdom at the beginning of the war and are now outside the sterling area, have been blocked under the Amendment to the Defence (Finance) Regulations of nth November, 1941; the amount of money involved in each case and the names of the individuals concerned; and whether it is proposed to take any further action to compel a contribution to the national war effort from these persons?

Sir K. Wood: Examination of various cases is proceeding, but takes time to complete. I am not prepared to publish names. As regards the last part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to my previous replies.

Mr. Mander: Will my right hon. Friend in due course publish the number of

cases in which action has been taken and the total amount involved?

Sir K. Wood: I will look into that.

CIVIL SERVANTS (CHRISTMAS LEAVE).

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what proportion of the staff of the offices at present evacuated to seaside and provincial towns will be granted leave, with or without travel vouchers, during Christmas week?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): Instructions have been issued that no leave is to be granted to civil servants which involves long distance railway travel between 24th and 28th December inclusive. An exception is made in the case of compassionate leave. This action corresponds with that taken with regard to members of His Majesty's Forces.

Mr. Walkden: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that, while such instructions may have been issued, large numbers of civil servants in certain areas which I could mention to him privately have themselves hired public service vehicles from private contractors, and that journeys are to be made 240 miles to London next week?

Captain Crookshank: I am afraid I know nothing about that.

Mr. Walkden: But did you issue the passes?

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF INFORMATION.

WEEKLY WAR COMMENTARIES (SPEAKERS).

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Minister of Information whether he is satisfied with the arrangements now in force for providing suitable speakers for the weekly war commentaries throughout the country; and what complaints he has received?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Information (Mr. Thurtle): There is no uniform system of weekly war commentaries throughout the country, but the Ministry has been able to secure a sufficient supply of suitable speakers to


meet the demand for this type of meeting where it exists. My right hon. Friend is not aware of any complaints in this connection, except the case to which I think my hon. and gallant Friend refers, in which some objection was taken to a sitting Member addressing such meetings in his own constituency.

Sir T. Moore: Will my hon. Friend say who decides on the qualifications which justify these speakers being selected?

Mr. Thurtle: I cannot go through the whole list of their qualifications, but they are very carefully considered, and they are not permitted to address meetings unless they are apparently capable of giving a good address.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that if he is ever in any difficulty for speakers, I can supply him with some?

TELEPHONE CONVERSATION (WELSH LANGUAGE).

Sir H. Morris-Jones: asked the Minister of Information why, on a recent occasion, a telephone conversation in Welsh between a parent in North Wales and his soldier son in Northern Ireland was prohibited by the Liverpool Telephone Exchange?

Mr. Thurtle: For defence reasons all telephone conversations between Great Britain and Ireland, including Northern Ireland, must be conducted in English.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are millions of patriotic Welsh-speaking citizens in this country, and hundreds of thousands of them in the City of Liverpool alone, and cannot he provide two or three Welsh-speaking persons at the Central Exchange in Liverpool?

Mr. Thurtle: I have given my hon. Friend the answer, and as far as the point which he raises is concerned, I will see that it is given consideration.

COMMENTARY ("INSIDE THE NEWS").

Mr. R. C. Morrison: asked the Minister of Information whether he is aware that, six days after Japan declared war, members of local information committees received by post Ministry of Information's weekly war commentary,

entitled "Inside the News," stating that there are numerous signs that General Tojo's. administration are reluctant to embark on the gamble of a war; and will he consider whether it is necessary to continue the issue of this weekly commentary?

Mr. Thurtle: Yes, Sir. I must point out that the commentary in question was dated 4th December and contained quite a fair summary of the indications for and against war in the Pacific as at that date. It is obvious that it was out of date when distributed, and my right hon. Friend is looking into the whole question of its issue and distribution.

Mr. Morrison: What useful purpose is served by sending out thousands of these long letters—anonymous letters—every week to busy people when they contain a rehash of what they have already read in the newspapers? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that since this Question was put down No. 101 has been sent out, containing a statement which has since been directly contradicted by the President of the United States of America?

Mr. Thurtle: The point which the hon. Member has raised in his Supplementary Question is now being given very serious consideration by the Ministry.

Captain McEwen: To whom are these letters sent?

BROADCAST (CANCELLATION).

Sir Percy Harris: asked the Minister of Information why he stopped a proposed broadcast by J. E. W. Gibb, which he had been invited by the British Broadcasting Corporation to give on Tuesday, 2nd December, on Regulation 18B?

Mr. Thurtle: The proposed broadcast was abandoned by the B.B.C. at the request of the Ministry of Information. There were defects in the arrangements for this broadcast which my right hon. Friend much regrets, and he would like to express his apologies to Mr. Gibb for any inconvenience and embarrassment caused to him.

Sir P. Harris: Is it not really a fact that this broadcast, which I have in my hand, was an impartial description of a Debate that took place in this House and that the real reason it was stopped was that the Home Secretary objected to it


because it contained some criticism? Is it now to be the policy of the Ministry of Information that no one is to be allowed to broadcast unless they express exactly the. views of the Government?

Mr. Thurtle: One of the difficulties in the arrangements to which I referred in my answer was that the script was received by the Ministry of Information only at a very late hour, and when the text was received some doubt was felt whether it was an impartial statement of the case, and it was thought right to consult the Home Secretary. He expressed the view that while there could be no objection to the B.B.C. putting before the public the arguments on both sides of the question in dispute by debate between opposing speakers, the proposed talk did not give an impartial statement and was, in a material point, inaccurate. For this reason the proposed broadcast was cancelled.

Sir P. Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman, in common fairness, allow this broadcast to be made public, so that the House can judge for itself why this gentleman, who is a director of the "Economist," not by any means a politician—he arranged to broadcast only at the special request of the B.B.C.—when he arrived about an hour before the time of the broadcast was stopped, merely because the broadcast contained one or two passages in criticism of the policy of the Government?

Mr. Benson: Will steps be taken to invite Mr. Gibb to broadcast again?

Mr. Thurtle: So far as publicity is concerned, there are ways and means of getting publicity other than by broadcasting. If any question of a debate were to arise, no doubt the claims of Mr. Gibb to take part in the debate would be given very serious consideration.

Sir P. Harris: Is it the policy of the Government that there shall be no broadcast unless in the form of a debate when the broadcaster is not a nominee of the Government?

Mr. Thurtle: I should have thought that my right hon. Friend would agree that it is undesirable there should be a broadcast of a partisan statement on an acutely controversial subject.

Mr. Shinwell: Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that those of us who

occasionally speak in the country at weekends shall be allowed to make what are alleged to be impartial statements without the consent of the Home Secretary?

Sir P. Harris: I beg to give notice that I shall take the earliest opportunity of raising this question?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

UNDECORATED WARE.

Major Lyons: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is satisfied that the de-restriction on the manufacture of low-priced unornamented utility cups and saucers is having any effect upon the availability of such articles; and whether, in view of the concentration of certain mass-producers of these articles in other firms of dissimilar manufacture, he will give some concession in export restrictions to those able to manufacture these commodities but who have no available material for the purpose under present control?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Waterhouse): The general licence for the production of undecorated ware only became effective on 1st December. It is therefore too soon to judge the effect of the arrangement to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers as it must necessarily take some little time for manufacturers to adjust their production and for supplies to reach the retailers. As regards the second part of the Question, I am not clear what my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind since there is at present no restriction on exports of decorated or other pottery and no control of the essential raw materials of the pottery industry.

Major Lyons: In view of the difficulty there is in getting such articles, will my hon. and gallant Friend consider representations from the trade showing how impossible it is, in view of the doubtful type of concentration taking place, to get these materials and see if some step can be taken to put these cheap goods back on the market?

Captain Waterhouse: The Board of Trade are always glad to consider representations from the trade.

Mr. Walkden: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman consult with the workers


who have to pay for a cup and saucer three times what they had to pay in 1939?

CLOTHES RATIONING.

Mr. Mander: asked the President of the Board of Trade, what arrangements exist for enabling women, who are replacing men in garages and other places where boiler suits and other protective clothing is required to obtain these without coupons?

Captain Waterhouse: Boiler suits are now obtainable at the reduced rate of four coupons, and women workers in garages should be able to obtain a reasonable number of these out of their ordinary ration of 66 coupons. A continuance of the former arrangements under which boiler suits were obtainable coupon-free would give these workers an advantage over the rest of the community, bearing in mind the saving of other clothing effected by wearing such overalls.

ONE-MAN BUSINESSES.

Mr. Crowder: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether owners of one-man businesses who have been called up, and whose businesses have as a consequence to be closed down, will be automatically allowed to resume trading activities immediately when the war ends?

Captain Waterhouse: There is nothing in the Location of Retail Businesses Orders to prevent a trader who carried on a retail business at any premises during any part of the basic period from setting up business again in those premises after the war. Moreover, in his absence no other person may, except under licence, carry on a retail business of a kind covered by the Orders in those premises unless the goodwill of his business has been assigned to him by the original trader.

MILK SUPPLIES (CHILDREN).

Mr. David Adams: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, as he has decided to distribute the fruit juices and cod liver oil for young children through child welfare centres, he will now make the receipt of national milk for nursing and expectant mothers and children up to five years of age contin-

gent upon the children concerned attending the child welfare centres and thus secure the return to these centres of many thousands of children lost to them due to the general distribution of national milk?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Major Lloyd George): No, Sir. I appreciate the purpose which my hon. Friend has in mind, but I could not accept a proposal which would inevitably have the effect of reducing the number of children receiving benefit under the National Milk Scheme.

Mr. Adams: Is the Minister aware that, since milk is now being generally distributed, and not distributed through the maternity and child welfare centres, some 30 to 50 per cent. of the children do not now attend these centres, and that they are losing substantially as a result?

Major Lloyd George: I cannot accept the statement that they are losing substantially, because the original purpose of these centres was to advise the mothers, and not to distribute milk. Since the National Milk Scheme has come into operation, milk is received by the mothers without going to the centres, but it is open to them to go there for advice, which is the primary purpose of the centres.

Mr. Adams: As a matter of fact, have not mothers stopped going there, because they obtain the milk elsewhere?

Major Lloyd George: The primary purpose of the centres is not to distribute milk, but to give advice. If the mothers are getting milk elsewhere, they can still go to the centres for advice.

Mr. Adams: But they are not doing so.

EMPIRE WAR CABINET.

Mr. Granville: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the changed war situation, involving the British Empire in operations on a world-wide scale, he will now consider the formation of an Empire War Cabinet for the purpose of obtaining the closest co-operation between the British Commonwealth of Nations on propaganda, production and strategy?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Attlee): My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has at present nothing to add to previous statements made on behalf of the Government


on this subject, except to repeat that we have constantly under consideration the best methods of ensuring the closest co-operation with the other members of the British Commonwealth in the prosecution of the war in which we are all engaged.

Mr. Granville: In view of the fact that the war has now spread to the gateway to India and Australasia, is it not time that the Government took steps to mobilise the full resources of the British Empire, including India, under an Empire War Cabinet, or must we again wait for the inexorable march of events?

Sir T. Moore: How is it possible for departmental Ministers, already so overburdened by their activities, to take on this tremendous responsibility of directing the war effort?

Mr. Granville: If I cannot have an answer to my Supplementary Question, I wish to ask this: The right hon. Gentleman said that certain discussions are going on with the object of concerting Allied war plans, can he say whether the Dominion representatives are present at these discussions?

Mr. Attlee: I think the hon. Member did not hear quite what I said. I said that we have constantly under consideration the best methods. That does not mean that the Committee is sitting. We are in constant consultation on these matters with the Prime Ministers of the Commonwealth.

Major Lyons: In view of the very different situation now, will the right hon. Gentleman impress upon the Prime Minister that there is a strong feeling in the House and the country for the immediate formation of an Empire War Cabinet?

Mr. Granville: Owing to the urgency of this question and the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise this on the Adjournment as soon as possible.

ITALIAN PRISONERS (EMPLOYMENT).

Mr. Wakefield: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the urgent demand for labour, he will arrange that the War Office take over the building of their camps from the Ministry of Works

and Buildings with a view to using Italian prisoners of war for this work, thereby releasing British workmen for urgent work elsewhere?

Mr. Attlee: All Italian prisoners in this country are already fully employed on work of national importance, including the construction of prisoner of war camps. The transfer of responsibility for the building of prisoner of war camps from the Ministry of Works and Buildings to the War Office would not have any effect on the total amount of labour available.

Mr. Bevan: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that it will cause the deepest apprehension and fear in the country if any more work is given to the War Office? We would like to have the war taken away from the War Office if we could.

Mr. Attlee: I thought the hon. Member supported the National Government.

MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (FIRE-WATCHING, SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCE).

Mr. Glenvil Hall: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider setting up a Select Committee to inquire whether the fact that Members are entitled to take subsistence allowances for fire-watching duties at the Palace of Westminster disqualifies them as holding offices of profit under the Crown?

Mr. Attlee: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is advised that Members who, under arrangements that have been made, may claim and receive subsistence allowance in the circumstances referred to in the Question are not disqualified from sitting and voting as Members of the House. I do not, therefore, think it necessary to ask the House to set up a Select Committee.

Mr. Mathers: In view of the assurance which the right hon. Gentleman has given, will he endeavour to encourage those who can conveniently do this work, but who are not helping those of us who are?

Mr. Attlee: I am quite sure that if hesitation to join in the work was due to apprehension about their position, that apprehension has now been removed.

FAR EAST (ALLIED CO-ORDINATION).

Commander King-Hail: asked the Prime Minister whether there has been arranged an exchange of senior staff officers between the Chinese High Command and the British Commander-in-Chief in the Far East, with a view to ensuring close co-ordination of all operations being carried out by China and ourselves and the Allies against Japan?

Mr. Attlee: While it would not be in the public interest to go into detail on a matter of this kind, I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that our arrangements for co-ordination with the Chinese High Command are well advanced.

Mr. Garro Jones: How many British commanders-in-chief are there in the Far East? If there is only one, does he have command over the operations by all arms or not?

Mr. Attlee: The hon. Member should put down a Question of that kind.

CAMOUFLAGE.

Sir John Graham Kerr: asked the Prime Minister, since attention has repeatedly been drawn to the inadequate use made of the camouflage principle known as compensative or counter-shading, and in particular to a group of guns erroneously counter-shaded, whether he will place the whole subject of the use of paint in war camouflage immediately under the supervision of a competent expert in this branch of biological science?

Mr. Attlee: The principle of counter-shading is well understood by those responsible for camouflage design. It is only one of the factors which must be considered in determining the most effective use of paint for camouflage purposes.

ARMED FORCES (CHRISTMAS LEAVE).

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that, owing to the prohibition of general leave for men in the Fighting Services, accommodation for temporary lodgings in towns and villages nearby to camps and war stations is becoming taxed to capacity, due to the desire of soldiers' and airmen's

wives and families to be near their menfolk during the Christmas period; and whether he will modify the orders for the week-end 20th to 21st December?

Mr. Attlee: My hon. Friend appears to be under a misapprehension. As my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport explained in answer to the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander), on 3rd December, the normal amount of privilege leave will be given during the Christmas period, but it has been so arranged as to avoid travel by long-distance trains during 24th to 28th December inclusive. The only restriction during the week-end of 20th and 21st December will be in respect of short-pass leave, and the object of this restriction is to enable a higher percentage of men to be sent home on privilege leave on those days.

POST-WAR RECONSTRUCTION (WALES AND MONMOUTHSHIRE).

Sir H. Morris-Jones: asked the Minister without Portfolio whether it is his intention to set up a committee to consider the post-war problems of Wales and Monmouthshire?

The Minister Without Portfolio (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): I have this matter under consideration, and hope to make an announcement shortly.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to—

Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Bill, without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill intituled—"An Act to extend the power of the Governor-General of India to make acting appointments of Judges of the Federal Court."—India (Federal Court Judges) Bill [Lords].

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Ordered,
That, notwithstanding the practice of the House, the Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Bill may be considered in Committee immediately after the Bill has been read a Second time."— [Mr. Attlee.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Proceedings on any Motion for the Adjournment of the House that may be moved by a Minister of the Crown at this day's Sitting be exempted from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Attlee.]

Mr. Shinwell: May I ask, Sir, for your guidance? As I understand, this Motion will enable; my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal to ask for the removal of Strangers and for the House to go into Secret Session. If that is the intention, may I ask whether an opportunity will be given—

Mr. Speaker: This Motion merely provides that, on the Motion for the Adjournment, the ordinary Adjournment Rule will not apply.

Mr. Shinwell: If the ordinary Adjournment Rule does not apply, am I to understand that, the Standing Orders being suspended, the House can proceed in Secret Session, for the purpose of discussing the length of the Recess?

Mr. Speaker: No, the Motion merely suspends the Rule relating to the time of Adjournment if the question under discussion is the Adjournment.

Question put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That at the next Sitting Day Questions may be taken; and that no Question, of which notice has been given, be taken after the expiration of one hour after the meeting of the House."—[Mr. Attlee]

Mr. Garro Jones: May I respectfully suggest that when it is necessary in future to put down a Motion of this kind, it should be put down in time to allow Members to put Questions on the Order Paper by the ordinary method of giving a certain period of notice, and not when it is too late for them to do so?

Mr. Silverman: Does not this Motion, if it is accepted, confer upon Members the right to put down Questions for the next Sitting Day?

Mr. Speaker: The ordinary Rule still applies, and Questions may be put of which notice was given yesterday.

Mr. Silverman: If that be so, what function would be served by the passing of this Motion? It would merely give us the right to do something which we are unable to do.

Mr. Denman: Is it not the fact that a number of Questions have been put down, and that they will now be answered?

Mr. Speaker: Under the ordinary practice of the House, no Minister need attend on that particular day of the week to answer Questions. Under this Motion, the procedure in regard to Questions will be the same as on any other day, and Questions can be put, and will be answered.

Mr. Garro Jones: May I respectfully suggest that the Ruling which you have just given makes quite apposite my request to the Government that in future they will endeavour to give this notice in time to enable Members to put Questions on the Order Paper with the usual period of notice?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Attlee): We endeavour to meet hon. Members as far as possible. The hon. Member will realise that there was some question whether we should sit on a fourth Sitting Day, and, therefore, the Motion could not be put down until that question was settled.

Question put, and agreed to.

CHRISTMAS RECESS.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Can the Lord Privy Seal now announce the length of the Christmas Recess and the Business to be considered when the House meets again?

Mr. Attlee: We propose that the House should meet again after the Christmas Recess on Tuesday, 20th January. I shall move the Motion at a later stage in our proceedings to-day.
The Business for the first week after the Christmas Recess will be as follows:
First Sitting Day—Committee and remaining stages of the Education (Scotland) Bill; Second Reading of the War Orphans Bill, India (Federal Court Judges) Bill and the Patents and Designs Bill, both of which come from another place, and Committee stage of any necessary Money Resolutions.
Should a statement on the war situation be necessary, the Business could be rearranged to permit of this on the first Sitting Day.
Second Sitting Day—Second Reading of the Landlord and Tenant (Requistioned Land) Bill and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
Third Sitting Day—Second Reading of the Sugar Industry Bill, if reported upon by the Examiners, and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.

Mr. Shinwell: Do I understand that the Lord Privy Seal proposes to move the Adjournment to communicate the length of the Recess in Public Session?

Sir Percy Harris: Will the Lord Privy Seal give an undertaking on behalf of the Government that, if there is any serious fresh development in the war situation, the House will be called together without delay before the date mentioned?

Mr. Attlee: Certainly, Sir. I was proposing to state that on moving the Motion, but if I do it now, it will be as well. Of course, we now have the power to recall the House, and my right hon. Friend will realise that it is only a fortnight ago since we did recall the House at very short notice, and it is the intention of the Government, should the occasion require that the House should be summoned, to do it again.

Mr. A. Bevan: Will there be an opportunity given to the House to debate the Motion which the right hon. Gentleman intends to move?

Mr. Attlee: I propose to move it later.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: In view of existing circumstances will the Lord Privy Seal consider the advisability of the House being called back earlier, and then, if necessary, it could go into Recess again until the date he has mentioned?

Mr. Gallacher: Is not the Lord Privy Seal aware of the fact that there are serious fresh developments every day and that Parliament should be meeting every day?

Mr. Stokes: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal whether, in view of the grave anxiety felt by the country as a result of the statement of the Prime Minister last week, he will reconsider the decision to hold the Debate in secret at the next Sitting and hold it in public instead?

Mr. Attlee: I think that the House agreed when the suggestion was put before them that there should be a Secret Session, and I do not think that it would be useful or advisable to discuss matters of that kind in public.

Mr. Stokes: Does the Lord Privy Seal recall that on 15th May this year the Prime Minister said he would not ask the House to go into Secret Session except when the Government had a statement of great importance to make? I understand

that there is to be no statement on the next Sitting Day and therefore what is the necessity for a Secret Session?

Sir Irving Albery: I wish to ask whether the Government do now assume the responsibility for recommending a Secret Session, and whether there is any use at all in the public interest in holding a Secret Session unless the Government have something to communicate to the House of such a nature that it cannot be communicated in public?

Captain Cunningham-Reid: In view of the fact that the Prime Minister said that this House is a recognised addition to the defences of Britain and the country is safer when the House is sitting, how can the Lord Privy Seal reconcile that statement with the fact that since August last including the coming Christmas holiday, the House will have been sent away on four different occasions for long periods?

Mr. Attlee: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister did not say that the safety of the country would be helped by Parliament sitting the whole time without Recess. Obviously, the hon. and gallant Member knows that, when the House is up, it is not a holiday for Ministers and that it is not a holiday for most hon. Members either. It is very unfortunate to suggest that it is a holiday. The work of government is very heavy both for Ministers and for Members, and it is necessary to keep in touch with the country and to get on with the work of the war. Therefore, I think there is nothing whatever to be said on the Motion to be put down on the statement of the Prime Minister. In answer to the question put by my hon. Friend, the Government are always anxious to give the House the fullest opportunity of discussing any subject, and if it is represented to the Government that any Members wish to raise matters which they themselves realise are matters which should be raised in Secret Session, the Government will accede to their request, and I think that is a reasonable thing to do.

Sir A. Southby: May I have an answer to my question?

Commander Bower: The right hon. Gentleman said that there might be a statement on the War Situation, and can the House and the country have an assurance that if that statement is made it will


be made on the Adjournment or on some Motion before the House in order that a Debate may take place?

Mr. Attlee: That is a matter for consideration in each particular instance, but, broadly speaking, the view is that, when there is a statement made, it should be made on the Adjournment. That did not happen the other day because of the rush of business which had to come before the House.

Mr. Stokes: Can the Lord Privy Seal say through what channels it was represented that the Debate should take place in secret at the next Sitting?

Mr. Attlee: It was represented by various Members and then, when I made a statement to that effect in the House, it seemed to me to meet with general acceptance.

Sir I. Albery: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether when he gained that impression it did not arise out of the fact that this House believed that the Government had something to communicate which should be communicated in secret?

Mr. Attlee: I do not know whether the hon. Member was present at the time, but what was said arose out of the statement which had been made and on which hon. Members wished to have a Debate.

Mr. Granville: According to the newspapers and to statements by right hon. Gentlemen there are tremendous and vitally important talks going on which will affect the whole direction and strategy of the war, and will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the House of Commons will not have to wait until 20th January before His Majesty's Government can make any statement that they can make to the people of this country on what has taken place?

Mr. Attlee: Whenever it is necessary a statement will be made. I was dealing merely with the question of the Debate at the next Sitting on which, I understand, Members have something to say which they intend to say in Secret Session. That does not in any way prevent a statement being made to the country, whether in this House or anywhere else, when it is necessary.

Sir A. Southby: May I have an answer to my question?

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Speaker rose—

Mr. Attlee: I beg to move,
That this House at its rising upon the next Sitting Day do adjourn till Tuesday, 20th January, 1942.

Mr. Shinwell: I beg to move to leave out "Tuesday 20th," and to insert "Thursday 8th."
I believe that to be a reasonable proposal, and it will be a reasonable Recess. We need not discuss—this would not be the appropriate occasion to do so—the gravity of the situation or the new framework in which the war has to be conducted, but it must be obvious to every hon. Member that the new situation demands the closest attention of all hon. Members and the closest contact between this House and the Executive. It is true that the power is vested in you, Mr. Speaker, and the Government, or in you acting in understanding with the Government, to recall the House at any time but that does not seem to be fully satisfactory. On the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal as to the need for Members consulting with their constituents, I would venture the opinion that hon. Members will always consult with their constituents when it is necessary, at any time.
I have but one further point to make. It is maintained from time to time by the Government that it is essential to provide right hon. Gentlemen opposite with opportunities of thinking things out without being hard pressed by hon. Members at Question Time and in Debate. That is an argument which has been heard repeatedly in this House. Sir, we can only judge by results. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite were permitted a fairly long Recess on the last occasion when the House adjourned over a period and they had an opportunity then of thinking things out. We now discover—I cannot go into the matter in any detail—that there was inadequate preparation in the Far East. If that is the result of a prolonged Recess and thinking things out, it would, in my judgment, be infinitely preferable for hon. Members to maintain the closest contact with the Executive from day to day. I believe that some Recess is necessary. I believe, however, that a Recess of the duration which I


have ventured to suggest is adequate for our purpose—adequate for the purposes of hon. Members and adequate for the purposes of right hon. Gentleman opposite. I do not propose to pursue the matter further, except to say that it is my intention, if hon. Members will support me, to Divide the House on this issue.

Sir John Wardlaw-Milne: I hope the Government will seriously consider accepting this Amendment. The situation in the country is such that I think it is in the interests of the Government themselves to accept an Amendment of this kind and give the House an opportunity of hearing any statement that may be necessary. I can hardly agree that in present circumstances a statement of some kind will not be necessary before the date which has been suggested and if, in fact, the Government find and the House of Commons is satisfied that nothing more is required than a formal meeting of the House on the earlier day, the House could then adjourn until the date which is indicated in the Motion. But I would impress upon the Government a fact with which I am not sure we are all fully conversant, namely, that there is deep interest in the country in this matter at the present time. It is easy to say that events at the moment are not going well, but that in a war of this kind there must be occasions when that will happen. Nobody will be surprised at ups and downs in our fortunes in a war of this magnitude, but in view of what has been said by Ministers themselves in this House, and in view of what has been stated by the Commander-in-Chief and others in the Far East regarding our readiness to meet possible enemies there, we cannot be surprised to find that the country is deeply disturbed. I suggest that it is in the interests of the Government themselves to accept the Amendment, and to give the House an opportunity of coming together. We should let the country know that the House is anxious to meet to carry out its duties, to follow the course of the war closely and to give what assistance it can.

Sir P. Harris: The Government will agree that there is no particular merit in the date in the Motion. Nor is there any particular merit in the date in the Amendment. Speaking for myself, I have a

shrewd suspicion that it may be found necessary for us to meet even earlier than that. Things are moving very fast and there is almost bound to be a new development of some kind out in the Far. East which will involve summoning the House even before the date suggested in the Amendment. Earlier I put a supplementary question to the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Privy Seal. It was not put with the idea of helping the Government out of a difficulty but I would repeat the suggestion if the Government gave the House a definite assurance that, should anything serious transpire, the House would be called together at once, that might meet the situation. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] That is my personal view. I am not satisfied any more than any other hon. Members that the House should be put off until the date in the Motion but I repeat that if the Government gave a solemn undertaking that should there be any serious new development in the war in any part of the world, they would summon the House at once, that would probably meet the case.

Mr. Hore-Belisha: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne), I address an appeal to the Government with complete good-will. There is a distinct difference between allowing Parliament to be called together at the behest of the Executive and allowing Parliament to remain in Session as of right. I believe that this Motion was conceived and decided upon in circumstances that were quite different from those which prevail to-day. I believe that, in normal circumstances, the House would have acquiesced in this Motion. But none of us can deny that the Empire is more closely encompassed by perils to-day than ever before in its history, and I do believe that it will create a false impression throughout the world if this Motion is carried in its present form. You cannot write Parliament off at a moment of great urgency, as if its remaining in Session did not matter, and as if it had nothing to contribute. Nor do I think it fair to deprive us of the opportunity of consultation. I am absolutely convinced that if any Minister were to put himself outside the contacts of the Front Bench and were to stand in this place from which I speak, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister used to do, he would see the matter in the light in which I am endeavouring to put it.
I believe that it is in the interests of the Government themselves to concede this Amendment and that it would be most embarrassing to the House if we had to divide upon it. I do ask the Government to refrain from putting the House in that position. They have nothing to lose by calling the House together for one day on the date mentioned in the Amendment, which is all that the Amendment implies. As my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) has said, it is very probable, or at least distinctly possible, in present contingencies, that we may have to come together before that date—it may be even on Christmas Day itself. Therefore, I would appeal to the Government to accept the Amendment on the understanding that, if nothing of importance has occurred by the date in the Amendment. we can then adjourn if necessary to the date mentioned in the Motion. But I feel that it will be injurious to the national interest to allow a Motion of this kind to be passed in present circumstances leaving it in the hands of the Executive to decide whether or not Parliament is to be called together.

Sir William Davison: I would like to reinforce the appeal which has been made to the Government to give consideration to the need for a Sitting of the House on a date earlier than that in the Motion. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Devonport (Mr. HoreBelisha) that the House will be placed in an embarrassing position if we have to vote on this question. The Prime Minister has repeatedly told the House of his conviction that it was of great assistance to the Government in times of peril to have the House of Commons in Session because it enabled the Government to hear the views expressed by the House of Commons as representing all shades of thought in the country. I think the Government do not realise that the country, as a whole, did receive a great shock when the people heard, through the Press, of recent events, especially in the Far East. There is also the great campaign that is being waged in Northern Africa. The country is taking a vital and urgent interest in all these matters and in my view it will not be in the best interests of Parliament or of democracy, and it will certainly not be in the interests

of the Government if we are told that our advice, in a time of great urgency like this, is not wanted by the Government, and adjourn for such a long period as that suggested by the Motion without being called together in the normal way to be told the result of the epoch-making events now taking place and without an opportunity for the House of Commons to tell the Government what their feelings are on these matters.

Mr. Erskine Hill: I hope the Government will take into consideration, and give effect to, what I believe to be the general wishes of the House. There is very real anxiety in the House, and who can wonder? There is, too, real anxiety in the country, and although on other occasions I should have spoken to the opposite effect—because I think there is something to be said for a Parliamentary Recess for a considerable time—on this occasion I should like to add my voice to those who have spoken before me.

Commander Bower: May I briefly add my plea to those which have already been made by other hon. Members? I feel that some Members of the Government are, perhaps, a little bit out of touch with the feeling in the country. After all, we go to our constituencies almost every week-end, and we are all in touch with opinion. I have never known the public in my constituency so stirred or so anxious, and in many ways so ill-informed, as it is now. We cannot say much and the Government cannot say much, but they will have to do so soon. If this House has to go away for so long a time, as if Parliament did not matter, that would be yet one more sign of the abdication of Parliament—an abdication which has become more visible in more ways than one. Parliament must assert itself, and I say that in no hostile manner, because I am a supporter of the Government. Although I am sometimes one of their critics, I try to be helpful. I think the views of the House to-day are absolutely unanimous.

Mr. Attlee: The Government are always desirous of meeting the House on these matters, and I strongly resent the suggestion made by the hon. and gallant Member for Cleveland (Commander Bower) that this House has become weaker through the war. I think it has become stronger, even more so than in


any other period. The Government only desire to meet the House on this point. They perfectly well recognise that there is anxiety, and I regret that my hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell), in the course of his remarks, should have made a statement, with regard to unpreparedness, that cannot be now answered, but the Government are perfectly willing to accede to the requests to meet on the date suggested in the Amendment, if that is the general wish. That does not mean that if the need arises, we shall not meet earlier. It is always difficult to pick on a particular date, early or late, but I think the House will agree that the Government, on other occasions when there has been the need for the House to meet, have shown a readiness to call Members together at once. That does not spring from feelings of apprehension in the House. As a matter of fact, the callings of the House earlier have been done by the Government because they realised that the House ought to be called together—as happened a fortnight ago. As I have said, I am quite willing, on behalf of the Government, to accept the Amendment and to meet on the new date suggested. Then we can see how the situation has gone and is going, and for how long it is necessary to sit.

Mr. McNeil: If the necessity arises for calling the House together, will my right hon. Friend give such notice as will enable Scottish Members to attend? I quite appreciate the difficulty, but the last time it became necessary to recall the House it was physically impossible for any of the Scottish Members to be present.

Mr. Attlee: Hon. Members will have notice of the new date, but, of course, we have no control over events. We cannot ask for notice from Hitler or the Japanese before they invade a country. The whole point of this Amendment is that the House must be called together at the earliest possible moment. One cannot delay on such occasions. I regret the inconvenience to some Members, but I think that is the view of the House.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that on the last occasion notice of the recalling of the House was given by the B.B.C. on the 12 midnight news that the House was to meet the following afternoon. Would it not be possible, even in the circum-

stances which he has mentioned, to give notice on the six o'clock news, because some people go to bed before midnight? If we had notice through the six o'clock news, we could make arrangements to travel next morning.

Mr. Attlee: I must point out to my hon. Friend that on the last occasion the event did not become known to us until after the six o'clock news.

Mr. Magnay: Could there not be an understanding that we should have notice by telegram? On the last occasion I heard the midnight news, but it was only because I was seeking relief from jazz that I happened to be listening to the wireless. I should not have had it on except for that. I suggest that it is of national importance that every Member should have notice by telegram.

Amendment agreed to.

Question, as amended, agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House, at its rising upon the next Sitting Day, do adjourn till Thursday, 8th January.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL SERVICE BILL.

Order for consideration of Lords Amendments read.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered," put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

CLAUSE 1.—(General obligation to serve.)

Lords Amendment: In page 1, line 12, after "in", insert "or with".

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Assheton): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This is a purely drafting Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Amendment, in page 1, line 18, agreed to.

CLAUSE 3.—(Extension of Acts to women.)

Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 4, after the first "woman," insert:
not living apart from her husband under a decree or order of any court.

Mr. Assheton: This Amendment carries out a pledge that I gave on behalf of the Government at an earlier stage of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: In the printed Bill there is a misprint in Clause 6. Paragraph (a) should be paragraph (d). Perhaps, as this is the concluding stage of the Bill, the House will agree that it should be altered.

Hon. Members: Agreed.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.

Read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the whole House; Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS, 1882 to 1936.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1936, and confirmed by the Board of Trade under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, entitled the North West Midlands Electricity District (Meaford Generating Station) Special Order, 1941, a copy of which was presented to this House on 26th November, be approved."—[Mr. James Stuart.]

Orders of the Day — HOME GUARD.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. James Stuart.]

The Secretary of State for War (Captain Margesson): On 2nd December, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made a statement upon man-power and woman-power. In the course of that statement, he said:
Power must now be taken by Statute to direct men into the Home Guard in areas where it is necessary and to require them to attend the drills and musters indispensable to the maintenance of efficiency. Liability for service in the Home Guard will be defined by Regulation. We do not propose to exercise this power until that Regulation has been subject to a special discussion in the House of Commons, apart altogether from the discussions of this Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd December, 1941; col. 1043, Vol. 376.]
World events have brought into increasing prominence the question of the

defence of these islands, and it is my duty, as Secretary of State for War, to see that our preparations against invasion here are brought to a high state of readiness against the time when the threat of invasion becomes a more immediate one. The existence of that threat has decided His Majesty's Government to make it obligatory upon all citizens within certain ages to give part-time service if called upon. It would obviously be unjust to exclude one part-time service, namely, the Home Guard, from this general obligation. I am certain that the Home Guard would never wish to claim such a privilege. It is just because we recognise that they are of such vital importance in our scheme of National Defence that, where the Home Guard is under-manned, the ranks must be filled. That being so, the Home Guard must come into line with all other parts of the Defence Services.
As the House knows, the Home Guard is the second line of our defence. I welcome the opportunity given to me by this Debate to give the House some idea of what we propose in order to establish and maintain the strength of the Home Guard and to ensure its proper training for war. It follows from the very nature of this citizen army that the distribution of its personnel is not necessarily the most desirable distribution from the military operational point of view. It is partly for this reason that in some areas the strength of the Home Guard is below what we would like it to be. It is also true to say that in some areas where the need is less, personnel have not offered themselves for enrolment in sufficient numbers, sometimes because they cannot persuade themselves that they are really needed at all, and sometimes no doubt, because they think that the necessary arms are not available for them.
It is for these reasons that power has been taken by the National Service (No. 2) Bill, 1941, to make certain provisions by way of Defence Regulations. Clause 1(b) of the Bill provides that the liability of a person to some form of part-time national service includes liability to give part-time service in the Armed Forces and that the extent of that liability is to be provided for by the Defence Regulations. I propose, during the course of my remarks, to tell the House what powers we propose to take in these Regulations.


The Regulations themselves are not yet drawn, but on the advice of my military colleagues, I desire to exercise these powers at an early date in order that the training of the Home Guard may be put upon a proper footing without any further delay. I hope that during the course of the Debate I shall receive advice and help from all sides of the House which will help me when I come to frame the Regulations finally, and it was with this object that the Prime Minister gave his promise on 2nd December.
The Home Guard was born out of intense patriotism and a realisation of imminent peril. It is fundamentally a voluntary organisation. It is at present composed exclusively of volunteers, men who have accepted great personal inconvenience and in many cases sacrifice in order that they may be trained to fight for their country in the event of invasion For months, now, they have suffered this inconvenience and sacrifice in varying degrees. It is true that the enemy has not so far attempted invasion, but the Home Guard know that until that threat is finally removed they must ever be watchful and they must ever be prepared, and their spirit and enthusiasm have not been dimmed because up till now they have been inactive. This spirit of service I, for one, am not prepared to flout or discourage, and it is for this reason that I intend to apply the powers of compulsory enrolment only in those areas where it is necessary. I do not believe that it will ever be necessary to apply these powers universally, but I cannot disregard the fact that there is a shortage of personnel in some of the operationally more important areas, and in those areas, particularly, I shall make use of the powers conferred upon me. I should make it clear that I do not intend to apply this compulsion except in areas where I can be sure of a sufficiency of weapons for the resulting recruits.
In the areas where compulsory enrolment is resorted to, there will be serving, side by side, volunteers and compelled men. As the House knows, the volunteers are at present entitled to give and receive a fortnight's notice of termination of service. The compelled men, on the other hand, will be liable to service for the duration of the emergency, or until their services are dispensed with. I do

not believe that it is in the best interests of any Service that members of it should serve under varying conditions, and my second proposal is, therefore, to ask men who are already serving in the Home Guard throughout Great Britain to accept the further liability of being retained in the Service as long as is necessary.

Mr. Wedgwood: Will they be forced, or will they be asked to volunteer?

Captain Margesson: Perhaps I may be allowed to continue. I am coming to that point. Men who are already in the Home Guard will be given a sufficient period in which to make up their minds whether they can serve under the new conditions or not. I remember well being faced with a similar question during the last war, when I was serving in the Worcestershire Yeomanry. I was asked then whether I would accept the further liability of service overseas, and I do not remember many of us having any doubt about the answer at that time. And so, to-day, I have received overwhelming evidence that the more seriously minded and more active members of the Home Guard are willing and, indeed, anxious that this step and this further liability should be carried into effect. This part of my proposal will refer, therefore, to the whole of the Home Guard, whether serving in specified areas or not. I must make it quite clear that resignations from the Home Guard will in no way exempt a man from his obligation to perform part-time service, whether in the Home Guard or Civil Defence, in accordance with the directions of the Minister of Labour and National Service; but such a man will be safeguarded in the same way as other members of the public, and will be able, if he wishes, as a civilian to state his case before a civilian tribunal. I do not anticipate that there will be any considerable number of withdrawals following on these proposals. If, however, the incidence of withdrawals in any particular area should result in the strength of that area being diminished beyond the danger point, we shall have no hesitation in applying powers of compulsory enrolment to that area.
I should like to say a word or two on the subject of training. The Army Council already has power under the existing Defence Regulations to order attendances


for training and duties, and to court-martial offenders if the order is not obeyed, but, owing to the voluntary and unpaid character of the Force, members of it are exempt from any form of summary punishment and cannot be fined. In practice, therefore, we have not exercised our powers of court-martial against members who do not attend parades or duties. It is, however, a vital necessity, if the Home Guard is to be fit to perform its duty, that all its members should be definitely under an obligation to attend a certain number of hours for training and for duty. The third part of my proposal is intended to ensure that these attendances for training and duties will be kept. Here, again, I am not prepared to see one section of the Home Guard serving under a different set of conditions from the other. The Regulations will provide that men, who are directed into the Home Guard for part-time service, shall be liable to penalties inflicted by a civil court for failure to attend training or duty. The civil court can inflict a penalty more appropriate to the class of delinquency here in question than the punishment which a court-martial is able to inflict upon part-time unpaid members of the Armed Forces. Moreover, the House will remember that there were civil penalties attaching to the Territorial Army in peacetime, and there is a close similarity between the liabilities undertaken by Territorial soldiers in times of peace and those now undertaken by members of the Home Guard.
I have come to the conclusion, therefore, that a Regulation must be made requiring compulsory attendances for training and duties on the part of all members of the Home Guard, whether volunteers or compelled men, and providing that a member of the Home Guard who disobeys orders or absents himself from duty will render himself liable to a summary conviction in a civil court. The maximum penalty will be one month's imprisonment, or a fine of £10, or both. These penalties, I should like to point out, are exactly the same as those provided for in the case of Civil Defence workers. The Regulation will provide that prosecutions are not undertaken without proper consideration by high military authority. There is no very close similarity, I think, between the duties of the Home Guard and those of most of the Civil Defence Services. The Home Guard

is required to perform duty as well as training throughout the Service. Many of them must guard vulnerable points for so many days. All of them must also attend parades for training. For this reason there would be justification, in my view, for requiring members of the Home Guard to give longer hours of attendance than are required of part-time Civil Defence workers.
The Home Guard has the dual function of guarding and of training; therefore it might reasonably be expected that they should give more hours than Civil Defence workers. But it is perhaps undesirable that one class of part-time worker should be called upon to perform longer hours than another, and I have come to the conclusion that, at any rate for the present, it will not be necessary to prescribe longer hours. I propose, therefore, to lay down that a maximum of 48 hours in any four weeks may be required of the Home Guard for training and duty combined. I have, of course, no intention that every home Guard should perform these periods of duty. That must clearly depend upon the standard of training already reached by the individual and the local need to perform operational duty, such as guard and patrols. Full consideration will be given to the position of workers in agriculture and in industry who may for good reasons be unable to give the full amount of time to their Home Guard duties.
There has been some criticism of the decision that women should not be permitted to be members of the Home Guard. There are many objections to such a proposal. In the first place, there is a heavy demand throughout the country for the services of women in a part-time capacity in industry and in other directions, and I should have to be able to show a very strong need for women, even as auxiliary members, before I could feel justified in trenching upon this field, large though it is. I have also to consider whether there are useful jobs in the Home Guard on which women could be employed. I am already deeply indebted to large numbers of patriotic women for a great deal of voluntary work, much of it carried out by more elderly women who will not be caught up under the Bill and whose available hours of service are intermittent and spasmodic and could not be easily fitted into any compulsory part-time scheme. I will


keep an open mind on the subject, and, if it should prove later that there is scope for the employment of women in this organisation, I shall not hesitate to review my present decision. But the outcome of invasion will be decided in weeks, and not in many weeks at that. The organisation and administration of the Home Guard in action has been based throughout upon the military model. Its operational command and many of its administrative services are based upon military arrangements affecting the field Army, and I am not yet convinced that there is an adequate place for women in this part-time Army whose role is, armed with the most modern death-dealing weapons we can provide, to fight the enemy to the end. That being so, I must be more fully convinced than I am at present of the need for women if I am to adopt the proposal which some of my hon. Friends urge upon me.
Although it has nothing to do with the proposed new Regulations, I should like to tell the House in broad outline something of other proposals that we have for using the part-time service of the Home Guard to relieve full time soldiers for more mobile roles. The Prime Minister has already announced that we intend to give members of the Home Guard in selected areas the opportunity of manning antiaircraft guns and searchlights. We propose to limit their employment to the heavy types of anti-aircraft equipment with a static role and to some of the searchlight battalions, and these equipments will before invasion be the responsibility of the Home Guard, but only during the night. There will be no restriction upon the numbers of the Home Guard who may be employed on this duty or upon the number of additional Home Guard who may be recruited for it, but existing or new members of the Home Guard will be accepted for service with the guns or the searchlights only if they live close to these sites. The vast majority of the Home Guard carry on their ordinary business during the day, and obviously I cannot expect them to undertake duty every night. Thus it will be necessary to train a number of teams for each gun or each searchlight. This arrangement will obtain up to the time when the Home Guard is mustered. Then, of course, there will not be the need for so many reliefs, and the balance of

the men will be used for other purposes. We do not propose to form special Home Guard battalions for these duties. The men will form a part of the existing battalions.
We intend also to accept a limited number of lads on a voluntary basis, between 16 and 17 years of age, for duty with these detachments up to a certain proportion of each individual detachment. Our plans are not yet fully settled, and, though suitable boys may be earmarked, they may not yet be enrolled. We have already decided to use the Home Guard in coast artillery units for local protection purposes and as higher numbers of gun detachments. The same general conditions will apply to them as I have explained in connection with the anti-aircraft units. I am not in a position yet to say how many men can be used in this way, but our plans are now being worked out in detail.
There is one thing more I would like to say to the Home Guard, to those many tens of thousands who will be affected by these new proposals. Some of them may say to themselves, "I have willingly accepted all, or most, of the obligations which you are now going to put upon me compulsorily, but the demands of my civil occupation may well increase as the war reaches its climax, and as a matter of honesty I do not feel I can properly bind myself, as a legal liability, to attend training and duty when I may not be able to do so." I ask Home Guardsmen to dismiss this thought from their minds. I have already explained that the hours of attendance represent a legal maximum of compulsory attendances, and that we shall exercise the power of requiring attendance in a sensible and understanding manner. In my view, there is no reason whatever why anyone at present serving in the Home Guard should decide that he ought to leave it for this reason. My purpose has been to explain as fully as I could my intentions as regards compulsory enrolment and attendance. I hope and believe that they will commend themselves to the House, to members of the Home Guard itself, and to the country as a whole.

Mr. Charleton: The reception of this Memorandum by my hon. Friends here has been somewhat mixed. There are those on this side of the House who are members of the Home Guard who


have thought that some compulsion should be applied to make citizens join and take their corner in the defence of the country. Some men left the Home Guard owing to the conditions under which the Home Guard laboured for the first 18 months or so. Looking back, one must admire that ragged Army which first formed the Local Defence Volunteers, going up to the hills and plains and on to high buildings in their own clothes in wet weather, anticipating the Prime Minister's remark a week ago when he said that we would if necessary defend our towns with sticks and pikes. That is how they went out, and they were submitted to some ridicule because they fashioned for themselves dummy wooden rifles in order to drill better. One must say that they did not get much help from the War Office in those days. Paragraph 2 of the Memorandum deals with those who may be excused on grounds of hardship or other grounds. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to consider men who have been exempted from fire-watching on medical grounds, and to suggest that the same certificate of exemption might release them from liability to serve in the Home Guard without the necessity of any further examination. I should like him to let us know also whether the punishment for military offences will extend to when a man is going to and from a parade in uniform, or whether it only applies to the time when he is actually on parade.
I was at first suspicious of the paragraph which says that the duties of the Home Guard will be defined in instructions issued by the Army Council. Everybody, I suppose, is suspicious of the Army Council. I remember when I was one of the governors of Roehampton Hospital that those high-minded and patriotic ladies who laid the foundations of that hospital in the early part of the last war went in a deputation to the War Office. I presume that they saw the Army Council. They were assured that the cases of amputation of limbs would be negligible. We know better to-day. Then an officer who, I believe, is high up in the Army Council, assured us at the beginning of the war that we should be all right because the Germans had no officers who served in the last war. Perhaps it is a good job for the Germans that they had not, or they might still have been sitting round the Maginot Line. As

it is, they made other arrangements for carrying on the war, with disastrous effects to us. The Minister said he thought there would be little difficulty in the present members of the Home Guard making up their minds whether to re-enlist or not. I would point out in passing that the problem for many of us who will be called upon to make a decision is very different from what it was when one was in the Yeomanry 20 years age
I was glad to hear that the War Office do not propose to act too strictly in regard to the number of hours' attendance. There will be men liable to service who will be working on a shift system and they would, perhaps, actually have to lose their rest in order to attend parades. Everybody will be glad to know that the War Office are to use the Home Guard on anti-aircraft guns and searchlights, and also on coastal batteries. That seems to be an easy thing to do where there are in the locality towns from which men can be drawn. I have in mind mainly the rural areas, from which still more young men are to be called-up for military service, and there will not be so many left. That position does appear to create difficulties, but I will return to that point later.
One thing about which I feel concern is whether the introduction of conscription for the Home Guard will destroy the spirit of that body. I have enjoyed immensely my membership of the Home Guard. Here in the House it has brought Members of all parties very much closer together. We know each other much more intimately than before, and I believe we shall know each other to the end of our days. No doubt there will be "old guards'" dinners in days to come. But I am a little suspicious, and I am sure there will be more than one Member of the same mind as myself, about what I may call, although I do not mean this offensively, "the Prussian-minded officer." We all know that there are such officers, those who are so keen on "spit-and-polish" and all that sort of thing. There comes to my mind the experience of a nephew of mine who was a sergeant in the Artillery in the last war. His officer would have all the brass parts of the guns polished; in the other batteries they did not. My nephew remonstrated with the officer about it. One day an enemy reconnaissance plane came over,


and within half an hour—luckily my nephew was away from the guns at the moment—the whole lot of them were wiped out. He said the sun was glinting on their sights and trunnions and they were easily visible from the air. That officer, with his silly, nonsensical ideas about polishing the guns, had, no doubt, cost that battery their lives.
I should like to ask, also, whether the Minister has considered the advisability of putting the conscripts in the Home Guard into separate companies, especially in the countryside. If you force into a company a man who has so far remained outside he may not fit in with the rest very well. After all, the speed of a convoy is the speed of its slowest ship, just as the strength of a chain is the strength of its weakest link, and the introduction of conscripts may cause endless difficulties. I do not know what the Minister may be prepared to do, but I think the point is worthy of consideration. It is always an unhappy thing to have a misfit among a small group of men, and it should be remembered that the men of the Home Guard do not work shoulder to shoulder like the men in a Guards' battalion. They will be working under very similar conditions to those which prevailed when I was in the old Rifle Volunteers over 50 years ago, before the days of aeroplanes and telephones. When we were reconnoitring or skirmishing we had to work on our own. Then I should like to know what is to be done about us grandpas who are now over the upper age-limit for the Home Guard. Of course, we cannot engage in gymnastic contortions round hedges and ditches and walls, and up ladders and trees and houses, like the younger men, but some of us can shoot, and if we were put in a blockhouse at a bridge-end or behind a wall we could stick on to the end.
I suppose that at the moment the War Office has no idea how many members of the Home Guard are over 65 years of age, but I believe the number is very considerable, and unless our position is considered it may be that the whole lot will have to go, because I take it that the Home Guard could not accept those over 65 as conscripts. I assume that the upper age-limit for conscripts will be 65, and many of us would still like to go on if we could.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for War (Sir Edward Grigg): As that point has been raised, I will deal with it now. The age for conscripts is the age laid down in the National Service Act, 18 to 51, but there is no limit of age in regard to part-time demands for National Service either in the Home Guard or anything else.

Mr. Charleton: You want us to re-enlist?

Sir E. Grigg: Yes.

Mr. Charleton: I can see that a shortage of man-power may arise, and I should like the Minister to consider whether companies of the Home Guard raised by railways and by industrial works should still remain independent units. There is the position at the old station where I used to work. It has a good Home Guard company of smart and efficient men. Those men are drawn from the district around, and naturally that depletes the number of men available for any other company raised in that neighbourhood. The Minister should consider whether it is necessary for a railway company with stations quite close together to have strong companies of the Home Guard if it means that there will not be so many men available for Home Guards for the district generally.
Then there is the question of equipment. We know the difficulties which arose after our losses at Dunkirk, and we feel the lack of equipment. I am particularly interested in signals. So far as I can see, the only system of signalling in the Home Guard is with flags. With the coming of the aeroplane, flags are really obsolete, because wherever a reconnaisance plane sees flags at work it will know something is going on. I think the Home Guard ought to be provided with daylight signalling lamps. I know the War Office are going to supply them, but we ought to get them pretty quickly. The Home Guard company here have functions in the City of Westminster, because we have to guard Westminster and Lambeth bridges, and there would be difficulty in sending messages from one post to another. "If the balloon should go up," we should not, I suppose, be able to use the telephone, and if our commanding officer wanted to communicate with the officer on Westminster Bridge or Lambeth Bridge or in Whitehall he would have to


resort to the use of runners. If the Germans were dropping a lot of stuff around that would be a very uncomfortable journey. The sooner we have daylight lamps the better. If we do not get them soon we shall be having the peace procession before we get the lamps.
There is another question arising out of the introduction of compulsion for the Home Guard. I constantly get complaints from soldiers as to how they are treated in the streets, how the "red caps" report them because of something wrong with their dress. Of course the military police are bound to do it, because there are always officers about and some of them like to show their authority. But take the case of a man of 65 in the Home Guard. He has been at work all day, he hurries home for his evening meal, gets into his uniform, and rushes off to parade. Is it to be expected of him that he should go through all those saluting evolutions that the young soldier of 18 with nothing to do is expected to perform? The average man of that age is thinking while he is walking. Young people do not think very much. That fact should be taken into consideration. After all, the Anzacs were able to do their fighting without all this spit and polish and were quite good at pushing back the Prussians, who are the leaders in all this heel-clicking and goose-stepping. There is no spit and polish about the Russian Army. Russian soldiers learn to fight and do their job, and that, it seems to me, is the example for the Home Guard. The Middle East Forces are fighting in shorts and open-necked shirts. I see by the paper this morning that a sergeant got into trouble because he had a tie on with his collar and the top button of his tunic was undone. That sort of thing is very silly and it ought not to be imposed upon the Home Guard.
The Home Guard stepped forward voluntarily, without any encouragement, to guard their hearths and homes. They never had a thought of being organised in battalions and big companies. They always thought they would have to guard their homes in little bands of men, and they have gone on, in spite of the War Office, so to speak, because they did it "on their own." They will still go on, and consideration should still be given to them. The War Office should

warn officers that the men in the Home Guard are still home guards who work hard. There are men in the mines and railways all over the country who do heavy work during long hours, with very much less food than is enjoyed by the ordinary soldier. Their bodies are not quite up to the well-nourished state of the soldier in the Army. I feel sure that the Minister will accept these words of warning. I believe that the Home Guard will loyally accept the new position so long as it is carried out in the spirit which I have outlined.

Major Marlowe: When I first entered this House, about a month ago, I was given two pieces of advice. One was to remain silent for about three months, and the other was that, when I broke that silence, I should avoid any form of controversy. I hope that the House will have no reason to think it is a pity I have ignored the first part of that advice, and I hope I shall not be considered guilty of controversy if I express the view that what has been put forward by the Government at this stage does not really go far enough. I understand that there will be no increase in the numbers of the Home Guard where the present personnel is considered adequate, but I have to ask, What is adequate? To my mind nothing is adequate, except that every man and woman should be trained to defend the country, and nothing short of that will do. It is no use trying to disguise the fact that many people feel discontent and resentment that they are not being allowed to do enough or to shoulder burdens which they would choose to shoulder; I think that became apparent in our recent Debate on manpower.
In the Home Guard there is a great opportunity for people to serve in the way in which they wish to serve. We are apparently being hard pressed in the Far East, but we ought not to be. We have had plenty of time to prepare there, and ample warning of what was coming. If there had been a really efficient Home Guard there, we should not have found ourselves evacuating Sarawak or withdrawing in Malaya.
I do not claim to have any special knowledge of troop movements to or from this country, but it is a reasonable assumption that the more we become involved in other spheres of the globe,


the more important becomes the function of the Home Guard in this country. The Home Guard are approaching the time when they will become the front-line troops. It is possible to visualise the time when, the bulk of the Regular Army having been sent overseas, the whole of the defence of this country may fall virtually upon the Home Guard alone. I know that when that test comes they will not be found lacking in courage and determination, but there is an uncomfortable feeling that they may be found wanting in training and equipment.
As to the latter, obviously the supply must depend upon the demands which are made elsewhere, but I want to urge upon the Government a changed attitude of mind towards the Home Guard. I want the Government to regard the Home Guard not merely as a subsidiary unit to the Regular Army, to be employed in catching spies, rounding up parachutists and maintaining lines of supply, but as a self-contained Army upon which the safety of the country may one day depend. For that reason, it is vitally necessary that the Home Guard should be trained and equipped as such an Army, and shall not be left to the last, to be provided with modern and up-to-date weapons when all other orders have been fulfilled. The Home Guard must receive its share now and at once. There must be a considerably increased amount of compulsory training. It is impossible to train an Army—I reiterate that it must be regarded as an Army, and not as a trained band, or a half-trained band, or as an amateur week-end party—in the number of hours which it is now suggested should be compulsory. There is no lack of enthusiasm among the members of the Home Guard themselves, but I complain of the mentality which regards the Home Guard as a body of secondary troops. The time may well come when they will not be secondary, but will be first-class in importance.
As we have learned to our cost, modern war demands highly trained troops equipped with modern machines. You cannot achieve that goal by means of evening classes and Sunday parades. It demands also a highly disciplined Army. I know of no reason why the Home Guard should be, as it is now, under a kind of compromise discipline whereby

it is subject to military law on some occasions and not on other occasions. That position is symptomatic of the attitude which I wish to see altered. I wish to see the Home Guard put rather upon the footing of soldiers who are given time off to become temporary civilians, and not civilians who are given time on to become temporary soldiers. As I have said, it is a question of the attitude of mind, and the Government should give a lead on this matter, not only in relation to the Home Guard, but in relation to the whole of the civil population.
I hope that I am not getting out of Order if I refer to the lack of direction as to the role of the civilian in the event of invasion, but if I am, perhaps I can get back into Order by urging the Government to consider the position of women in relation to the Home Guard. I remember, last year I think it was, reading a pamphlet which I gather was issued by the Government or with their approval, instructing the populace what to do in the event of invasion. I cannot at this stage recollect all that appeared in that document, but the burden of it, if I remember rightly, was, if the invader comes, not to give him lunch, but to telephone to the nearest village constable. That was admirable advice, so long as, first, the telephone was working; second, the village constable was not otherwise engaged with a thousand similar calls or perhaps inquiring into the validity of someone else's dog licence; and, third, the invader had not views of his own as to whether he took lunch or not. I wish to assure the Government that you will not stop the invader, when he comes, by giving instructions to the local policeman to take his number and copy down his particulars in a note-book.
There must be, I suggest, a change of attitude of mind as to what is to be done in the event of invasion We have good reason to believe that Russia has gone a long way towards saving herself. She did not do that by the kind of attitude of mind to which I have been referring. She did not stand submissively by, nor did her women and children. She saved herself—if, as we hope she has done— because when the invasion came every man, woman and child rose up and smote the intruder. What she has done we can do, and this country belongs to the women and children as much as to the soldiers.
I understand—and I base my computation on those figures which seem to be applicable to wages, insurance, compensation and so forth—that a woman of this country is calculated at about seven-tenths the value of a man. In the presence of the hon. Lady the Member for West Fulham, I hasten to say that I by no means agree with that computation, but I also hasten to add that, of course, that valuation applies only as to seven-tenths of a British man. I do not think it is too much to say that one English woman is worth 10 Germans. I urge upon the Government the desirability of giving a lead in that direction, and of pointing out that it is not throwing too great a burden on the womanhood of this country if every 10 women are asked to kill one German. If that were done, one could be sure in the event of invasion that there would not be one German left alive.
Perhaps in these observations I have wandered a little from the matter which was before the House, but I do. not think I am really guilty of that, because I want the Government to see that, when the invasion comes, not only will the Home Guard be trained and equipped to meet it, but there will be no pusillanimity in scorching this fair Island if we have to make that great sacrifice. If we are called upon to do that, I want the Government to see that we are ready for it. By issuing the necessary weapons and, perhaps, by a more intelligent use of information and propaganda, they could ensure that when the invader came every man, woman and child in this country would rise up and strike him, even if only with half a brick. If that mentality can be inculcated into the people, it would be found that they would be inspired with that vigour, that hatred of Germans, and that knowledge that they were sharing in the battle which, if I were a German, would make me a very frightened man.

Colonel Colville: I should like to congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Brighton (Major Marlowe) on his maiden speech, and I am sure the House will join with me in hoping that he will take part in our Debates on many occasions. He carefully observed the two maxims that were laid down for him, though I was afraid that at one time he was going to stray into a matter of controversy when he began to deal with the relative values of

women and men expressed as vulgar fractions. He steered his bark away from that hazard, and I congratulate him on the case that he has made for the Home Guard.
I welcome the statement made by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary of State for War, and in justification for taking up a little of the time of the House to-day, I should like to say that I have spent the last 18 months in whole-time work for the Home Guard, first of all as a local Defence Area Commander and later as a G.S.O.I., H.G., in a Scottish area. That area comprises a number of counties, very varied in type, and in the Home Guard we have men of all kinds and conditions, the dweller in cities and the dweller in the country, the shipyard worker and the Gaelic-speaking ghillie, and it has given me a fair cross section of Caledonian humanity to study in speaking of the problem. Conditions in all parts of the United Kingdom vary greatly and Scotland is only a part of the problem. My service, however, gives me some confidence in speaking, and, with that experience, I welcome every word which my right hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary of State has said. This statement is one of great importance and it marks a change in policy which has not been lightly undertaken. It has been undertaken only after much careful thought and inquiry, and I congratulate the Government on having decided to take this step.
Compulsion, in my view, is a proper and necessary step in the present circumstances, but judgment and experience will be necessary in carrying out this change if the vital needs of war-time industry and agriculture are to be safeguarded and if that great and line spirit which has animated the vast majority of members of the Home Guard for one and a half years is to be fully maintained. In reading the White Paper and in listening to my right hon. and gallant Friend's statement, I am satisfied that these safeguards are fully in mind, and that it is the intention of the Government to see that they are implemented. Those who have knowledge of civilian conditions as well as of the arts of war must take a part in administering these safeguards, and I hope the Government will keep that fully in mind in working out their proposals. Indeed, the White Paper makes


provision for this, as I see it, and takes into account the widely varying conditions which affect the civil employment of men in different parts of the country.
Why is compulsion now necessary? For a long time I was opposed to the introduction of compulsion in the Home Guard. Like many others, I have become convinced that it is necessary, and for three reasons. The first reason is that the obligations which have been applied to members of the public for Civil Defence clearly make it quite anomalous that similar obligations should not be applied for the Armed Defence of the country. The National Service Bill visualises that, and rightly determines that Armed Defence as well as Civil Defence should be on the same basis. The second reason is that the Home Guard is being called upon more and more to undertake new tasks in defence of their locality. With every extension of the field of war abroad, the importance of the Home Guard at home is magnified and its tasks increased. It is indeed vital that the Home Guard should be strengthened and rendered more efficient for this work. I believe that for these new duties some men can be found by voluntary enlistment; but I do not think that all can be found, and it is a risk we could not afford to take if these new tasks are to be fully discharged.
My third reason for not only accepting, but urging, compulsion is this: I am sure that everyone who has had experience in the Home Guard will agree with me that there is a small but persistent minority in the Home Guard not pulling its weight in duties or in training. Not every unit has this hard core, but a great many of them, I will go so far as to say most of them, have some drones in the hive. It is the good men who are to-day pressing that these men should be made to take their full share of the work. For these reasons I welcome the proposals of the Government. We are fighting for our lives in the greatest war in history. If the Government did not, after thinking it necessary, face the step of compulsion for the Home Guard, they would be gravely lacking in their sense of duty. I am not afraid that the spirit of the Home Guard will be adversely affected if these measures are wisely applied. Compulsion to train did not affect the spirit of the pre-

war Territorials, or detract from their keenness. Nor has compulsion affected the spirit of the British Army. He would be a rash man to-day who would say otherwise than that the spirit of our Army is as high as ever in history.
With regard to safeguards, the intake to the Home Guard by compulsion will be controlled, as the Secretary of State pointed out, and as this is a static force, unlike the Army whose recruits we may move anywhere, the views of local military commanders should be taken fully into account in considering the requirements in any area for the Home Guard. The White Paper states that the Army Council, jointly with the Minister of Labour and National Service, will decide what intake is necessary. I ask my right hon. and gallant Friend, in view of the static nature of this Force, that full consideration should be given to the views of the Army commanders, and the district and area commanders whose requirements for the defence of their Commands must really govern the numbers required for the Home Guard.
The numbers to be called up, will, in my view, be affected by three factors; the tasks required, the weapons available, and the facilities for training. Taking first the tasks, I believe that ground defence must be the paramount task. It was the task for which the Home Guard was called into being. But it is not the exclusive task. My right hon. and gallant Friend has referred to antiaircraft defence, both guns and searchlights. That is a duty which the Home Guard can and will undertake, but it requires careful organisation. The rota system, to which he referred, requires careful working out to ensure that a large balance of men not on duty on any given night can be given a proper and useful task when action stations are manned. There are other duties, such as guides and traffic control, for instance, for which the Home Guard are eminently suitable. The point has been stressed that there is no intention to change the character of the Home Guard duties in respect of directing men to go a great distance from home to carry out their duties. That should be clearly emphasised to avoid misunderstanding.
Intake must be governed, secondly, by the weapons available. Those who are brought in must have weapons. It would


be folly to enlist a large number of men and not provide them at a very early stage of their training with such weapons as are necessary for their instruction. I am sure that my right hon. and gallant Friend has that in mind, but I stress it, because I know nothing that would more quickly dishearten men than that they should be brought in by compulsion and for a long period have no weapons for training. The question of weapons is a difficult one. I would say at once that a notable improvement has been made in the armament of the Home Guard. They have got new and powerful weapons, but there are still gaps. Obviously I could not discuss these across the Floor of the House, but I should like to whisper in the Secretary of State's ear, and also whisper the word "priority," because the degree of priority accorded to the Home Guard has a most important bearing on our home defence.
Finally, there is the question of training facilities. A large intake will necessitate the provision of training officers and facilities for training. I make one or two suggestions in that connection. For some considerable time Home Guard battalions have had a paid officer with each battalion, an adjutant quartermaster. These officers are generally used more for administrative duties than for training. They were chosen largely from the ranks of the Home Guard or from the administrative assistants. Army officers of field experience were not available. With the increasing importance of the Home Guard and the new duties being handed over to them, it is important that battalions should, if possible, have, as adjutants, officers capable of field training, and in addition have a quartermaster for administrative work. Further, in some Commands, and I know this is true of the Scottish Command, we have had a great deal of help in training from Regular officers.
That is a scheme which I strongly commend to my right hon. and gallant Friend. I hope that he will encourage it in all command's. One recognises that it must be governed by the needs of the Services in other directions, but I hope that there is a possibility of extension of the scheme of attaching active officers from field units for a period to Home Guard battalions to help in their training, and particularly in the training for mobile patrols. The prewar Territorial Army had a much larger number of permanent staff instructors

attached to battalions than has been the case with the Home Guard. When one considers that many Home Guard battalions are even more scattered than were the Territorial battalions, one realises how valuable would be an increase in the number of permanent staff instructors, and I hope and believe it is coming.
My right hon. and gallant Friend has spoken of the maximum period of training in any four weeks as 48 hours, and has stressed that, in applying the rule, good sense and understanding of a man's civil occupation should be shown. A man may change his occupation while he is in the Home Guard, and regard should be paid to that possibility. The ordinary farm hand may become a cattleman, a steel works labourer may become a furnaceman, and many other kinds of workers may change their duties in a similar way. It may be necessary then to change the number of their drills. Therefore, those who have had experience of civil life must play a part in the administration of these provisions. I believe that the Government are wise to limit the age of compulsion to 50 for new recruits as in the Military Service Act. As I understand their proposal, men above 50 and up to 65—or older men if they are allowed to stay on longer—will be under a general compulsion to train, just like those who are under 50, and I think that is right and proper. I understand, however, that they will retain the right to contract out at a fortnight's notice. I believe that we shall lose very few as a result. I cannot imagine that men are likely to leave the Home Guard because of the changes now being made. I agree with the. proposal that they should have the right to contract out, but—

Captain Margesson: Within a specified period.

Colonel Colville: —but that they should come under the same conditions with regard to training. I read this proposal in the White Paper to mean that, after the age of 50, a man will have to fulfil his number of drills, but will retain the right to contract out at a fortnight's notice.

Captain Margesson: He will be able to contract out at a fortnight's notice, provided that he does so before the prescribed date.

Colonel Colville: I have read that wrongly. That modifies what I was going to say, as it removes the difficulty from my mind. After the age of 50, a man is subject to broadly the same conditions as apply to a man below the age of 50. Fifty is the age up to which men can be compelled to come in from outside if more recruits are required, but those who are now in the Home Guard and are above the age of 50 and who do not, within the specified period, give notice to leave will come under the same conditions with regard to training as others. I agree, however, that it should be recognised that among the older men there may be some who should be allowed to retire and that appears to be provided for.
I come to a point which is not strictly related to the White Paper, but which relates to the Home Guard. I hope that care will be taken not to call up for the Army all the men between 40 and 50 who are at present the backbone of the Home Guard. I agree that in a number of cases such men may be more usefully engaged in the Army, but there are cases of key-men in the Home Guard who would be better left there than given employment in the Army on Home Service, where their category would not be high. I hope that the balance will be very carefully weighed. The Home Guard have undergone many changes in organisation, some good and some not so good. I should like to pay a tribute to the work of the Director-General's Department, which has made a special study of Home Guard problems. The Director-General has cut more red tape in six months than, with 10 years' experience of Government Departments, I should have believed possible. I should like an assurance that that work of his Department will be continued.
The final paragraph in the White Paper relates to allowances. The scale of penalties is the same as that for Civil Defence, but the scale of allowances which applies to Civil Defence is not quite the same as that for the Home Guard. I do not ask that the scales for the two services should be completely co-ordinated, but there are cases where Home Guard allowances might be brought up to come more into line with those for Civil Defence. I had a Question down to-day,

about motor mileage allowances and I hope that we shall be assured that it is the intention to bring all these allowances more into line. In conclusion, I would say what I think the whole House feels. The year before us may bring to the Home Guard the supreme test of all, that of resisting invasion. It is a test upon which everything depends. In so far as the proposals we have heard to-day will make the Home Guard stronger and more efficient for that great test, we welcome them.

Mr. Ernest Evans: I think that the response made to the appeal for enrolment in the Home Guard surprised most people and probably surprised the Government more than anybody else. The history of the Home Guard is one in which the country can take pride. There has been a display of willingness and keenness which is a very great tribute to the people of this country. I want, as a member of the Home Guard, to refer to two or three practical questions, and to mention them without developing the matter, because I think they will already be known. I welcome very much what I think is a change of attitude on the part of the War Office to the Home Guard. When the Home Guard started, we found great difficulty in getting encouragement from the War Office in a practical way, but in recent months there has been a very great improvement, and I wish to join the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Colonel Colville) in paying a tribute to the work of the Director-General in this direction.
Many of us who are concerned with the Home Guard have been worried for a long time about keeping up the strength of that body. We have seen some of our best men taken away for other service and it has been very difficult to keep up the strength in many districts. That difficulty is accentuated very much by the provisions of the National Service Bill. One can foresee that many of our men will be called up for other service, and I want to make an appeal to the Government in this connection. I hope that they will bear in mind the requirements of the Home Guard as an efficient organisation when the calling-up takes place under the National Service regulations. There are in every company, and indeed in every platoon, two or three men, or perhaps


more, who have worked themselves up into a position of great efficiency as instructors and non-commissioned officers and it would really be a tragedy if they were taken away and put to other services at the present time. The training of members of the Home Guard in weapons and other work is of vital importance, and if we are to lose all the fellows whom we have trained to act efficiently, we shall be affecting very detrimentally the efficiency of the Home Guard in the future. I hope, therefore, that some recognition will be given to the importance of this matter in the administration of the National Service Act.
My instinct is entirely against compulsion, and, that being so, I sometimes sit in wonderment at the number of times I have supported the compulsory powers of the Government, but I have come to the conclusion that we must have compulsion with regard to the Home Guard. But the Government are making a mistake in the way they are doing it. As I understand the White Paper and the speech of the Secretary of State for War, the tendency seems to be that they are going to apply compulsion by areas. It is a mistake. The Government should provide for compulsion nationally, and if they wish to make exceptions in regard to areas, they can do that afterwards.

Sir E. Grigg: I am not sure that my hon. and learned Friend quite appreciates what is being done. The power of compulsion is universal throughout the country, and compulsion will be applied throughout the country in regard to terminating the fortnight's notice and the training. The only thing that will be local will be the power to raise extra Home Guards, and that will only be taken where extra numbers are necessary.

Mr. Evans: That is where I think the Government make a mistake. The White Paper reads as follows:
It is proposed at the outset only to exercise powers of compulsory enrolment … in certain areas where an insufficient number of Home Guards is available under the voluntary system.
That is a statement of policy by the Government. The net result will be very much the same, but the Government would have been very much wiser if they had said that the intention was to apply compulsion all over the country and then to take powers to exempt in certain areas. I am afraid there will be dissatisfaction

if, for example, a person living in Cardiganshire is able to say that because he lives in that area, the condition will not apply to him, whereas if he had lived in Cardiff it would apply to him, or vice-versa. Why should there be discrimination? If the Government had said that they would introduce compulsion on a national basis and then exempt men in areas it would have made a great psychological difference, and they ought to take that matter into consideration. I agree that those who have already joined the Home Guard should be entitled to retain their rights to resign over a certain period, and I am in agreement with my right hon. and gallant Friend who said he did not think that many members of the Home Guard would avail themselves of the privilege.
I pass on to the question of compulsory attendance at parades. My experience is that members of the Home Guard who are keen on their job have been very anxious to get some provision of this sort for a long time, and it will be generally welcomed by the Home Guard. But I am afraid that the actual number of hours suggested in the White Paper will be impossible in many parts of the country. My area is a rural one, and my battalion consists very largely of small farmers and farm-servants, and it is impossible to expect them to do 12 hours a week. I gather that that is the maximum, and I hope that we shall be allowed a good deal of latitude. There are one or two other things to which I want to refer. A considerable number of volunteers in the Home Guard do not attend parades, and, when they are asked why, they say, "It will be all right. When the emergency arises, we shall be there." I am sorry to say that many of them are men who served in the last war. It is very unfair to their colleagues in the Home Guard and misleading to the Government. However efficient they may be, if they turn up at the last moment when invasion takes place, their nuisance value will be greater than their usefulness. They may turn up at platoon headquarters, not having attended parades for a long time. We therefore shall not be relying upon them and the result will be that they will not know where to go when the emergency arises. They will be crowding the platoon headquarters and really be interfering with the efficient work the platoon is supposed to be doing in their own area.
In regard to ammunition I appreciate the statement that has been made, but I still say that the Government are not dealing fairly with the Home Guard in the ammunition given to them for training and practice. It is no good expecting the Home Guard to be an efficient instrument if all that you give them consists of a few rounds of ammunition with which to practice. Apparently there are difficulties in the way, but I would beg of the War Office to give these fellows a better chance of protecting themselves and of defending the country. On the question of weapons, we recognise that there has been a tremendous improvement since the early days. At one time we could not get any guns at all. We are now getting many different types of guns, and I, personally, welcome every one, but at the same time the greater variety of guns which are sent us the greater our difficulty of training the men who have to use them. It would be much better if we had a definite number of the same type rather than so many of a different type. In connection with this matter, I do not think that there are enough permanent instructors. In my battalion we have two, and it is a battalion which covers a very large acreage and a large number of villages. It consists of 1,300 to 1,500 men, and I am entitled to only one permanent instructor for each of my two companies.
In the matter of allowances, the great merit of the Home Guard is that it is a voluntary organisation. We accepted membership on that basis, and, personally, I am sorry that I am not still a volunteer. I enjoyed myself much more as a volunteer than I do in my present capacity, higher up. Officers and men are having to meet expenses out of their own pockets. Take the practical question of an area like mine. We are given a certain number of guns, and we have to take them up to the various platoons and sections 10 or 15 miles away. We have to beg, borrow or steal a car, because it is impossible to carry machine guns or Northover guns for such a distance, and we have to pay for the cost of conveyance. Another thing is that this applies to coastal areas. I have a big coastal area under my command. I have a letter, not from anyone in my battalion, but from a man who lives in the South of

England who has to go up into a coastal strip. He says:
Very soon we may have to fight on the beaches, a handful of elderly men and young boys with very little close support. My own small tactical role, for instance, is one for which in 1915 I would have expected to have been allotted 60 or 70 regulars but I am expected if ' Jerry ' comes to-morrow, to fight with a couple of dozen second line troops.
That applies to many such areas. I have a coastline under my command, and there are many small farmers and farm servants who have joined the Coastal Defence Service, thereby receiving 50s. a week. Yet some of my men in the Home Guard must do the same work and receive only their subsistence allowances. That raises two problems. One is the dissatisfaction at the difference in allowances, and the other is that if the Home Guard are called upon for the same service as this other Service, they should get similar remuneration. I am perfectly certain that while you must not put too much on the Home Guard, we will do what we are asked to do so long as we are given the means of preparing for it. The Home Guard is, I think, showing a keenness and desire to serve the country which are commendable.

Mr. McEntee: I would like to put two or three questions to the Under-Secretary and make one or two suggestions, which may be considered useful, in regard to what may arise out of the new conditions for the Home Guard. My military experience is practically nil. The only experience I have had has been that which I have obtained in the Home Guard. It is many years since I spoke on anything relating to military subjects, but I remember that when I did so about 10 years ago an hon. Member for one of the Tottenham Divisions asked if I was a colonel, to which I replied, "If I was, I should look the part, and that is more than you can do." As I am probably one of the youngest members of the Home Guard, I believe that in some way I could be useful, but it may be that because of the changes which are about to take place—which are both desirable and necessary—it is possible that people like myself may be ruled out. If I cannot kill one German every hour for 48 hours, are you to reject me because I can kill 28 Germans in 28 hours? That may apply to many hundreds of thousands of people. It will be impossible for them to give 48 hours' duty


straight off. I know that consideration is to be given and that there will be allowances made in certain cases, but circumstances will be continually changing.
The right hon. and gallant Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Colonel Colville) raised a point of importance—the question of people who change their occupation and residence, as circumstances will compel them to do from time to time. In circumstances like that, are you to reject a man who cannot give 48 hours' service but can give. 28 hours' service? I hope some opportunity will be given for such men even if they cannot serve in the Home Guard, so that their ability to handle a rifle will not be altogether lost.
Arising from that, I want to make a suggestion. In reading in the newspapers of what has happened in Russia, I have asked myself whether it is not possible that similar circumstances might arise in this country. In the event of an invasion at any place one can imagine in the country, it might easily be that, if the invasion were sufficiently successful to enable the enemy to land and destroy, as no doubt they would, many factories and private houses, many people would be compelled, by the weight of the German force, to leave their factories and go out to seek something to do. Very few of the people who might be affected in that way are at present trained in the use of arms. Why should they not be so trained? When I hear that my hon. Friend the Member for West Fulham (Dr. Summerskill) and other members of her sex are asking for an opportunity to serve in the Home Guard, or in some similar capacity, it occurs to me that their services might be used, as well as the services of workmen and others engaged in different capacities at the present time who might, as a consequence of an invasion, be forced out of their jobs and be on the run. These people are not able to use rifles or similar weapons. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the Government should consider the formation of a voluntary—perhaps, not even a voluntary—training corps of some kind in which people in the circumstances I have mentioned, and women who desire to do so—and certainly in the case of women it should be voluntary—might have an opportunity of learning to use rifles and similar weapons. I do not propose to leave the Home Guard if it is

humanly possible for me to remain in it, but if I am forced out of it, why should not I be given the opportunity of being ready should the need arise and the opportunity of getting arms and training which I could use in the interests of my country? I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the formation of a voluntary training system of this sort which would give opportunities to hundreds of thousands of men to use firearms. I ask him also to consider favourably the suggestion that women should be permitted to volunteer for training in the use of firearms.
There are one or two questions I wish to ask. I am very concerned about the reference to the "specified period." Why cannot we be told now what that period is? We are told that if we want to resign, we must resign within a specified period, and that 14 days after the resignation is tendered it will take effect. Why cannot we be told immediately what is the specified period? Why cannot we be told that it is three months or six months, or whatever it may be, from the passing of the Regulations? Do not leave the position as it is to-day so that people go on wondering and then one day suddenly see an announcement that if they do not send in their resignation before Thursday of next week it will be too late. We ought to be given time so that we can consider the matter reasonably and consult the interests with which we are associated and our families as to whether or not we shall be able to continue the duties which we have undertaken voluntarily when those duties become compulsory. Another matter which rather interests me is the question of discharging a man from the Home Guard. The White Paper states that:
There will be power to discharge a Home Guard at any time for good reasons.
A man can always be discharged from the Army for good reasons. Generally, it is considered that if a man commits an offence, it is desirable to discharge him from the Army. Will the position be the same with regard to the Home Guard? I hope not. I hope that if a man is to be discharged for what the Army Council consider to be good reasons, the man himself equally will have an opportunity of asking to be discharged. Why should there not be set up some sort of tribunal to which the man could make an appeal


and which would consider his case with some form of independence? I do not suggest that this should be done by the Army Council. There are many people, including myself, who have not too much faith in the Army Council, for many reasons. I suggest that there might be some kind of independent tribunal, some of the members of which would be civilian and some military, with one member having a judicial mind who would be able to weigh up in an independent manner the evidence submitted on behalf of the man
I think that nearly every member of the Home Guard will, if it is reasonably and humanly possible for him to do so, continue in the Home Guard. I do not think anybody will want to resign for frivolous reasons, but there might be good reasons which would lead a man to want to resign. Those reasons might be the circumstances in his home, serious illness, or something of that sort. I know a case of a very highly respected member of one of the local services on which I have served for many years who, owing to the conditions that prevail in his home, feels compelled to ask to be excused from certain duties which otherwise he would undertake. I can imagine scores of cases in which a man may be placed in conditions about which he does not want to make too much trouble or to which he does not want to give too much publicity. In such cases it would be desirable to have a tribunal to which he could appeal. For instance, in my experience as a Member of Parliament, I have come across many cases in which there has been in a man's home mental trouble on the part of his family which has placed upon him a responsibility that made it impossible for him to undertake duties of the sort which other people are able to udertake.
There are one hundred and one ways in which a man might be involved in circumstances of a kind that would make it right that he should have an opportunity to place his case before some tribunal which would decide whether or not he should be permitted to get his discharge. I have on many occasions appealed to the Secretary of State for War to discharge men from the Services on compassionate grounds. I do not say that the plea for discharge on compassionate grounds is not listened to sympathetically in the Army, for it is; but I hope that it will be listened to even

more sympathetically in the case of men serving in the Home Guard. Generally, they are older men, they have very much greater responsibilities than the younger men. and their health and that of their families often places a greater responsibility upon them. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give full consideration to these matters. There is, finally, one other question that I want to ask. I am doing 28 hours a month Home Guard duty, with a few extra hours on drills which I attend, but, in addition, I am doing at least as many hours' fire-watching duty. If I desire to continue to serve in the Home Guard, must I resign as a fire-watcher so that I can put in 48 hours' duty with the Service, or will I be permitted to say that between the two duties I am doing far more than the specified hours, and, therefore, I am offering a reasonable service in these times of difficulty?

Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward: The hon. and learned Member for the University of Wales (Mr. Ernest Evans) referred to the obvious injustice of enforcing compulsion in certain areas and allowing recruitment to remain voluntary in other areas. I must say that I cordially agree with him, and that I think it will be a mistake if membership of the Home Guard is not enforced in every part of the country. After all, there are very few places with sufficient men to perform the operational roles allotted to the units, and it is only in places such as London, Birmingham and Manchester where there are more men than the Home Guard need. Surely it would be better to enforce compulsion throughout the country. It could be made known that once an area had obtained a sufficient number of recruits, recruitment for the Home Guard could be temporarily suspended.

Sir E. Grigg: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. and gallant Member, but I am afraid that this discussion is being continued under a misapprehension. Compulsion will be universal—that is in regard to the right to withdraw—and so will the necessity for remaining in the Home Guard. Compulsion is universal and the only place where it will be local in character is in areas where extra numbers of men are needed

Sir A. Lambert Ward: I am sorry to criticise the Under-Secretary in regard to


what is known as the "housemaid's clause," which states that a man is entitled to give a fortnight's notice. I cannot help feeling that it is a mistake to do away with this provision. After all, it does not matter, because, when a man gives in his fortnight's notice, he can be redirected, under the powers already taken, into the Home Guard. By adopting this method, I think that you will do away with an injustice.
The hon. and learned Member for the University of Wales made reference to the shortage of ammunition for practice purposes. We all know what is the trouble in that respect. We all know the difficulties of obtaining ammunition, and these difficulties have been increased by reason of the events which have taken place during the past fortnight. Therefore, it will not be easier to obtain ammunition of a particular kind. In view of what is happening, and in view of what is likely to happen, would it not be possible to put down some small plant in this country to manufacture this ammunition? I understand that ammunition for Tommy-guns is already being made. Is it not possible to turn over some of the plant which is at present employed in making 303 ammunition to produce 300 ammunition? It would be simple to manufacture the quantity of ammunition required by this means.
The hon. Member who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench referred to the position of utility undertakings. I hope that the military authorities will go into this question. The railway companies, the electric-light companies, the London Passenger Transport Board and others normally come under the zones of local commanders when operations start, but these concerns are administered by totally different bodies. That constitutes a sort of dual control, and dual command is never really satisfactory and has always impaired efficiency and fighting strength. I sincerely hope that the Government will go into this question and see whether some more practical method of organisation and administration cannot be devised.
After reading the White Paper and listening to the speech of my right hon. and gallant Friend, the question which at once arises in my mind is with regard to the standard of efficiency that is being aimed at for the Home Guard. I am afraid there is a danger that too high a standard

of efficiency may be demanded, and this will result in all sorts of difficulties and complications. The Home Guard are not regular troops, and they never can be. Most of the men are employed on work which is vital to the war effort, and they cannot be expected to do the same duties as those of the Regular troops. In the zone in which I work—the East End of London—I think I am right in saying that at least 75 per cent. of the men have been hitherto in reserved occupations. These men are not only working full time, but overtime. Very often they are putting in 10 and 12 hours a day, as well as working on Saturdays and Sundays, and I cannot help feeling that it is impossible in their case to demand that they should do an additional 12 hours' training per week. I welcome the statement from the Front Bench that the question of additional training is to be left to the discretion of the local commanders. It is essential that the local commanders should know the conditions in the factories and works where their men are employed. I understand that it is still an axiom in the Home Guard that production comes first.
A rather niggardly attitude has been adopted by the Quartermaster-General's Department in replacing uniform and equipment which has been lost by enemy action. In the East End of London a good deal of enemy action and a good deal of destruction took place. Deficiencies are regrettable, but in the circumstances I cannot see that they were avoidable. A court of inquiry and a police inquiry have been held, and both have come to the conclusion that the losses were entirely due to enemy action during the blitz period of last year. I hope they have now been able to see their way to equip the men who have recently joined, because it is no encouragement to recruiting for a man to join and then find that there is no uniform or equipment for him to wear.
The only other point that I wish to raise is the question of the subsistence allowance. It was 1s. 6d. for five hours and 3s. for 11 hours or more, and the men were quite satisfied with that. But now fire watchers are being given exactly double that amount. They receive a maximum of 6s. for 24 hours, whereas the Home Guard receive only a maximum of 3s. for the same period, which has undoubtedly made them dissatisfied, because after a night's work 3s. for refreshments, with prices as they are at present, is not


really a very liberal allowance. On the whole I think one may congratulate the Government on the White Paper and on the attitude that they are taking up with regard to the Home Guard, but I must ask them to remember that the Home Guard are not Regular troops and that the men who enlist and work in it are employed in vital production during the greater part of their time, and allowance must be made for any deficiencies and weaknesses that may accrue.

Colonel Mills: I have read the White Paper very carefully, and I welcome it. The Home Guard sprang into being under Regulations made in May, 1940, and I think it is not only true to say, as the White Paper does, that since that date there has been a gradual increase in the obligations of members of the public in connection with measures of defence but that there has also followed the realisation by the public that we must be prepared to do anything and everything, according to our ability, if we are to survive in what is literally a struggle for national existence. I do not, therefore, anticipate any opposition of moment from inside or outside the Home Guard to any of these proposals. The Home Guard being composed of men who do such an infinite variety of jobs in their normal life, it is absolutely essential that the widest possible discretion should be given to Home Guard commanders in administering the Regulations that are to be made.
I am not sure that it has been understood by all speakers to-day that it is a maximum and not a minimum period of training and duty that is laid down. Conditions vary so much between town and country, and between companies and companies, and between individuals in those companies, that it is impossible to lay down any minimum period of training and duty which would apply absolutely to town and country alike, and to every individual in either town and country, without those hours being so short as to be perfectly absurd and to be a great discouragement to people who can do and are already doing much longer hours. The only test as to what is a proper minimum period of training and duty is the company commander's knowledge of his men and whether each is doing his fair share of duty and is doing his best to turn himself

into an efficient soldier. Those commanders know what it is fair and reasonable to expect each man in their commands to do according to his commitments and to what standard of training he has attained.
I hope a wide view will be taken of the areas in which these people of 18 to 51 will be directed to join the Home Guard. The battalions in my group are strong, but, even so, with the duties that we have to carry out, we can well do with all the men we can get, provided only—this is a most important proviso—that we can arm them adequately. In view of America's obvious other pre-occupations, I join most strongly in the appeal of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North West Hull (Sir A. Lambert Ward) that even now a factory should be turned over to produce small arms ammunition solely for the Home Guard. Such action would be an enormous encouragement to every member of the Force.
Going back to another provision in the White Paper, I am sure it is right that the power of volunteers to resign after giving 14 days' notice should go. Justice to present members will be met by giving them a certain period—I suggest that a month would be quite long enough—-in which to exercise that power if they cannot accept the new conditions. But if their circumstances change so greatly that they really have good reason to want to go out, I presume that it is still possible for a company commander to discharge them. I should like the Under-Secretary to make that quite clear.
I should also like to support the plea of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Midlothian (Colonel. Colville) for more adjutants. We want a man who can give all his time to training. The Adjutant Quartermaster now allotted to Home Guard battalions has to be out every night, all Sunday, and a good many Saturdays, and we really want a separate individual. As regards permanent staff instructors, I should like one for each company, but for heaven's sake let us have a good one, because a bad one is not worth finding. My own fear is that the Regular battalion commanders will not be able to spare enough of their N.C.Os. for the purpose, and I am afraid the supply is going to be rather short.
To go outside the White Paper for a moment, I want to advocate very strongly


one change in the official attitude. In the matter of compensation for damage to members of the Home Guard themselves and to their motor cycles and cars, they are sometimes treated very scurvily. That is a strong adverb, but in two or three cases in my group it is richly deserved. A change to a more generous attitude would do a great deal of good, because these hard cases are widely known and discussed. It would not cost very much to, remedy them. As set out in A.C.I. 924, which is the Home Guard Bible, the War Office have persuaded insurance companies to carry the baby so far as compensation for damage to motorcycles and motor-cars goes, but the companies do not extend the nature of the cover given and they do not of course pay compensation for damage to vehicles where the premium paid covers only third-party risk. Why should they? If, however, damage to a vehicle is done on Home Guard duty the War Office ought certainly to pay for it. They still carry a very cheap risk because the third-party part is being carried for them by the companies. The insurance element in the 2d. per mile rate which is paid for motorcycles must be very small and it is not reasonable to expect a man to increase his premium to cover a risk which ought to be taken by the War Office if his vehicle is damaged when he is on Home Guard duty. I am only surprised that so many members of the Home Guard put their motor cycles at the disposal of the service. Surely, such patriotism ought not to be penalised if a man sustains an accident while he is on duty. As a matter of fact, the War Office are extremely lucky to get so much cheap mobility.
I am prepared to give details of two or three such cases, and I must mention one case of personal injury. A platoon commander when out on his bicycle on a dark night in December to inspect his inlying picket and its posts. On finishing his job he started for home and had not gone 100 yards before his bicycle went into the kerb and he fell off and broke his leg. It cost him £80 in hospital and doctor's expenses, but he had no compensation because it was held that he had finished his duty when he turned round to go home. He is a man of 64, and if he had not had the keenest sense of duty he would have been home in bed. It is a burning shame that he should not have compensation because of such a

quibble. It is true that hard cases make bad law, but I have a solution to put forward to my right hon. Friend. If it is not desired for any reason to alter the Regulations under which compensation is given, I suggest that there should be a comparatively small fund placed in the hands of the Director-General of the Home Guard from which ex gratia payments could be made. I think that a sum between £5,000 and £10,000 would be more than enough to cover all that was necessary to prevent these hardships, which are very real indeed. If we are to apply compulsion to get people into the Home Guard it is more important than ever not only that justice should be done but that justice should be seen to be done. Decisions that are given on compensation questions may be within the rules laid down by the War Office, but they are clearly outside equity. I beg my right hon. Friend to cure this sore. The cost will be small but the gain in contentment among the Home Guard will be very great, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will invite me to give the details of these cases to the War Office for their reconsideration.

Sir George Schuster: I, like many other hon. Members, welcome this opportunity for a discussion on the Home Guard, and I will try to be brief in the points which I have to put. I particularly welcome the promise of wide discretion in my right hon. and gallant Friend's speech to-day. Of course wide discretion may have some time to be tightened up, and I want to ask my hon. Friend who is to reply for an assurance that he will continue the practice, which has been greatly appreciated by Members of this House who are interested in the Home Guard, of coming to meet us and allowing us to put points to him. I think there are a great many points that can be ventilated in that way to everybody's advantage. Turning to the proposals themselves I welcome them on the broad ground that they are based on what I consider to be the first cardinal principle which should apply to the Home Guard, and that is that it is a Force to be taken seriously. Methods of application must, of course, take account of local conditions. And there is another point which I wish to emphasise very strongly. Compulsory attendance will do more harm than good unless when the men turn up, they get good instruction


and are put on useful duties. I consider the question of instruction to be one of primary importance and shall refer to it again. My second cardinal principle in connection with the Home Guard would be that the problems of the Home Guard should be treated realistically. By that I mean, do not generalise too much, take account of local conditions, have a very clear idea of what are the local tasks and, finally, apply the up-to-date lessons of this war.
I am speaking as a platoon commander in a very scattered rural area, covering about 20 square miles. When I talk about being realistic and taking account of local conditions I want my hon. Friend to consider particularly what a change has come about in the duties of the Home Guard in some of the backward rural areas since the Home Guard was raised by reason of the construction of aerodromes all over the country. The duties of the Home Guard in connection with the defence of aerodromes have become, perhaps, one of the most important parts of their duties. They are duties which fall particularly heavily on what have hitherto been regarded as peaceful back areas where there are not large numbers of Regular troops. I do not want to say anything which would encourage the enemy, and I am quite certain that he will get a nasty time. wherever he comes, from the Home Guard, but I do want to be sure that he gets as nasty a time as possible and that we make the fullest use of our facilities.

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having returned—

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Act, 1941 [Session 2].
2. Expiring Laws Continuance Act, 1941.
3. National Service (No. 2) Act, 1941.

Orders of the Day — HOME GUARD.

Question again proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."

Sir G. Schuster: I was emphasising the importance of the duties of the Home

Guard in connection with aerodrome defence. I would like to put three points to my hon. Friend in that connection. First of all, I venture to suggest to him that it is worth while undertaking a special inquiry—a really thorough examination—into the need, in the case of aerodrome defence, for unifying the responsibility of command, and in saying that I include both the whole chain of command from the top to the bottom, and also the actual command of the defence garrison and the surrounding Home Guard units in the cast: of each aerodrome.
Secondly I would like to suggest to my hon. Friend that he should examine the orders which are now in force for the Home Guard in areas of this kind. I put it to him that in considering these areas and what is likely to happen there in the case of a German attempt to invade this country we can fairly visualise two stages—a first stage, when the threat is an air-borne threat, and a second stage—which I myself trust will never arise—when the enemy has really established himself and is moving on wheels along the roads. I submit that until we have reached that second stage the men in the Home Guard in those areas should not be clamped down to defended road centres, village strong points and so on, if they can be more usefully employed in taking part in the defence of aerodromes and dealing with air-borne landings.
The third point in connection with Home Guard duties in these backward areas is concerned with training. There is special difficulty about training in these rural areas. In my own area I have in my platoon about 65 men. There are two aerodromes, with the defence of which I am concerned. The men are scattered over 20 square miles. They will have to operate in at least six different parties. It is very difficult to get them together for training, and if you get them together you have not the time to give them individual training. What is necessary is that somebody should be able to go round one night a week to six different centres and take the men individually in simple duties. The ordinary Home Guard officer who has other duties to perform—and many of us who are concerned with rural areas have to do work in London—simply has not got the time to do that. I do not want


to ask anything that is impossible. This question of training is extremely difficult. It is no use having an extra G.S.O. 3 at sub-area headquarters, nor is it really enough to have an additional Regular officer at battalion headquarters. You want much more than that, and of course if one asked for that everywhere one would be asking for something that would be impossible. But I do believe that there are certain areas which require special attention, and I venture to put it that it is worth inquiring into that point to see what areas do need special attention of this kind so that the men who are really likely to be called upon for particularly urgent tasks, just because they are in backward areas where there are not many Regular soldiers, could receive that individual training which is necessary. I suggest that special Army officers might be allocated to such areas.
I want to make another suggestion. I believe there are quite a number of us who have to be in London during the week but who have taken on commands in rural areas. We have no time to go on courses of instruction, and I am a little doubtful whether these courses of instruction represent the best available use of the time for those limited, simple problems with which we have to deal. I believe it would be very valuable if it could be arranged that on a certain number of evenings in the week special lectures were given in London by one or two first-class, youngish officers who have had practical experience in this war, to people like myself. I believe there are a number of us in the House alone who would be very glad indeed to have a chance of attending one or two lectures of that kind where they could get practical tips about handling small bodies of men in the sort of conditions we may have to face in the event of an invasion of this country.
The last thing I want to say—and I have been trying to put several cardinal principles for the Home Guard—is, Put efficiency first. I venture to put it to my right hon. and gallant Friend that there is room now to increase efficiency. Some of the higher Home Guard Commands, I believe the great number in the country, are held by people who live in the area and are doing their job in a first-class way. But there are areas where it has not been possible to get men who com-

bine the qualifications of having the necessary time and really good military experience. I think the time has come when the whole position should be reviewed. I think that this is the time to do that, because a large number of really good Regular officers are being released from the Army, owing to the age limit. I put it to my right hon. and gallant Friend that in areas of that kind it would be very wise to have paid Home Guard commanders if there is no really well qualified local man with time at his disposal, or if no other man with adequate military experience can be found who can afford to take on the job and live away from home on an unpaid basis.
To sum up, there are three cardinal points—first, take the Home Guard seriously; secondly, deal realistically with its problems; and, thirdly, put efficiency first. And the main practical need now, I think, is individual training, and that training must be based not on any rigid Army method; it must be training of a kind that leads to ability and initiative, rather than mere drill of standardised training.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: My purpose in taking part in this Debate is to ask the Government to reconsider their policy and to include women in the Home Guard. We are discussing the conscription of men between the ages of 18 and 51 for the Home Guard. I, like many Members who have spoken, regret that we should have to adopt conscription. I wonder whether if those thousands of women who have already offered their services in the rural areas had been accepted, it would have been necessary to introduce conscription for youths. Frankly, the Government policy is a little bewildering to women. Last week we passed a Bill to conscript women between the ages of 20 and 30 for the Auxiliary Services. Our purpose is to put 100,000 of those women on the gun sites in the target areas. To-day the Government tell us that one reason why women must not be included in the Home Guard is the risk. This is rather a quibble about the mode of death. Women can face death on the gun site; they can actually be put on the target; they can be machine-gunned or bombed by the Germans; but they must not be taught to handle a rifle, or, perhaps, meet death in the Home Guard. The particular jobs


that women can do in the Home Guard are of such a character, possibly, that they will not face as much risk there as the A.T.S. do on the gun sites. Therefore, I ask the Minister to reconsider his policy. I welcome his remark that he has not closed his mind, and that if he should be convinced that it was necessary he would revise his policy. That was generous. I was gratified, too, to hear male Members on both sides of the House—the hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee) and the hon. and gallant Member for Brighton (Major Marlowe), who made his maiden speech, ask that women should be included in the Home Guard.
The Minister said that there were two important reasons why women should not be included. One was that there were other jobs for them to do. I cannot agree with that. There are many full-time jobs women can do, and many jobs that women can do if they live in towns, where, perhaps, they can work on half-shifts. I am thinking of the country districts, the large rural areas far removed from factories, where there are women in the 30's, 40's and 50's, and I hope that it will mean that women in the 50's can also serve a useful purpose in the Home Guard. There are women who have certain household responsibilities, but, at the same time, perhaps, five, six or 12 odd hours per week which they could devote to the Home Guard. It would be more in keeping with woman's traditional role as guardian of the home to play her part in the Home Guard of 1941. I want it to be clear to everybody that I am not asking for women to come into the Home Guard to wash up for men. That time has long past. I believe that I shall be supported by many people when I say that it is better for a C3 man to do the washing up and for an A1 woman, perhaps, to be on the gun site. That surely should be our approach to total war. We cannot be divided on a sex basis. This, after all, may be the eleventh hour. If we are going to make a total effort, are we to ignore more than half of the adult population, which is comprised of women? Women can make a very useful contribution, apart from the domestic side, to the work of the Home Guard. I do not for a moment pretend to be a complete authority on Army changes and organisation, although I have taken more interest in the matter during the last six months

than I have ever done before in my life, but I am advised by very responsible commanders of Home Guard units that they could make use of women very effectively as messengers and runners, and in order to keep open the lines of communication, to be on guard, to do all sorts of clerical work, and they could and should learn how to handle a rifle.
I know that immediately I use the word "rifle" everybody will be asking how we can provide rifles. The women of the country are not asking for equipment. They do not ask for rifles, but they do ask that they should be taught how to handle a rifle. How can the War Office know what would happen in an invasion? We might have all sorts of surprises, and, surely, we ought to be prepared. I want to illustrate this, although perhaps the illustration may be a little out of date. Think for a moment of the pioneers in America, when men and women went out together in covered wagons. The man was a fighter, with a rifle in his possession, and the woman in the caravan looked after him and the children, but, if they were faced with sudden danger and the man was injured, the woman did not say, "I wish I knew how to handle a rifle." She was not there as a fighter, but she was a second line of defence. She was able to take up the rifle and to use it. That is what we are asking.
Responsible people realise that when an invasion suddenly comes, all our preconceived notions may be swept away. Surely the War Office must admit that women on gun sites have proved themselves efficient and reliable. Perhaps the Minister will say that this is a new idea, but my answer is that this is a war of new ideas. Are not many of us saying, "If we only knew; if only we had anticipated that move"? I say, Anticipate the invasion in a practical way by using women. In this House we have a Home Guard which men go into willingly. Are we women expected to hide behind them in the event of an invasion? Surely that is stupid. Cannot I help the Home Guard here by acting as a messenger, or in some other way, or am I to sit by a man who handles a rifle, and in the event of an emergency which made it necessary for me to use his rifle say, "It was not womanly for me to learn how to use a rifle"? It is stupid and short-sighted.


I urge the Government to look at this thing with fresh minds. I do not believe women on the offensive are any good. I shall probably be attacked by members of my own sex for that, but we are not so aggressive. I believe, however, that on the defensive we are matchless, and I ask the Government to give us an opportunity of showing it.
The Minister has had representations made to him, and I hope he will reconsider the matter. My hon. Friend the Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee) suggested that there might be independent units of women, and I want the Secretary of State to know that although he recently placed a ban on Home Guards being allowed to teach women how to use a rifle, the result has been to stimulate the interest of women. There is now in this country a Women's Home Defence Corps. It is not a small corps. The unit in Edinburgh is so strong that it cannot take any more women because there are not enough instructors. In Cambridge, Leamington, Pinner, Slough, Harrow and other districts all over the country women have come voluntarily together to learn how to use a rifle, and I wish the Minister, instead of frowning at them, would give them his blessing. With regard to youths of 16 coming into the Home Guard, I want to remind the House that at the beginning of the war we asked the Government not to send youths under 20 abroad. They have now changed their policy, but I think that what we suggested then showed that we were anxious to protect the youngest recruits from danger. Now the Government come to the House and tell us that they are to send the boys of 16 into the Home Guard—

Captain Margesson: The hon. Lady has used the expression "sending boys of 16 into the Home Guard." That is not what I said. It is on a voluntary basis; there is no question of sending them.

Dr. Summerskill: If my 14-year-old son were old enough, he would volunteer right away, I am sure. I cannot agree with the Minister. We must not exploit the enthusiasm of youth. If boys of 16 are asked to volunteer, of course they will do so. I think this is taking a rather unfair advantage. The Prime Minister referred to the powder monkeys. I think that the powder monkeys of last century,

like other children in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, were more to be pitied than envied. But if these boys of 16 are to help the Home Guard, why not have mature women to help the Home Guard? Would not we be of much more use?

Mr. Benjamin Smith: What is a mature woman?

Dr. Summerskill: I am sorry the hon. Member has never met one. I will take the opportunity of having a word with him after the Debate. Again, on the subject of boys of 16, may I remind the Government that their policy is so muddled? On the one hand, the Ministry of Health send boys of 16 to the reception areas to be protected, and on the other hand, the War Office say that these boys of 16 are to go into the Army. I hope we shall stand by the policy of the Ministry of Health and protect these lads from danger. In conclusion, I know that these questions are new ones. I agree that it is rather difficult for the War Office, which have a masculine tradition, immediately to adopt the suggestions I have made, but I ask them to revise their opinion. I think it is complete folly at this stage, when the Secretary of State himself said that perhaps within a few weeks we might have an invasion, to ignore the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of women willing to volunteer and to help in this way to win the war.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: I think that all hon. Members are grateful to the Government for extending the time given to this Debate. It is just a year since we had the first and last Debate on the Home Guard, and so many developments have taken place, and so many hon. Members and persons outside the House are so fundamentally interested and occupied in Home Guard matters, that those of us who had looked forward to this Debate in order to express our views and make suggestions are glad to be given a full opportunity of doing so.
Before I make a few comments, suggestions and criticisms on the reorganisation of the Home Guard that is envisaged in the White Paper, there is one wrong that I think should be rectified. So far in the Debate one thing has been omitted; I am thinking of tributes. The first tribute should be to the men of the Home


Guard and their women-folk. Night after night and day after day, over the hills, through the streets and under the blackout, this gallant band of men have come to their nightly and daily duties, often tired after a hard day's work, often longing for the relaxation of the fireside, without entertainment, without rest, giving up everything for the sake of one job—to make themselves efficient and to do a job of work in the best interests of their country, for the defence of their own homes, their freedom, and the future of their children. They have done this without pay, without any reward except the satisfaction of their own conscience. Conscience is a very compelling emotion, but, unfortunately, it is less strong in some people than it is in others. I am glad that my right hon. and gallant Friend has recognised that fact, and that he is not leaving it to the willing horse in the Home Guard to bear the entire burden of the nation's ultimate defence. That is why everyone in the House and outside welcomes the dual compulsion which has been outlined in the White Paper—the compulsion to join the Home Guard, and the compulsion to make all those who have joined or may join it efficient and able to pull their full weight in the Force.
There are one or two problems which this decision raises. As far as I can see, as a result of the passing of the manpower Bill, there will be a large influx of men in the Home Guard, particularly among the younger age categories. I have consulted many of our old volunteers who have been in the Service from the beginning, and they feel that it would be unfair if they had to go through the earlier stages of training again when these new men are drafted into their units. It has been suggested that it might be a good thing to form a Home Guard reserve of those men who have reached a high standard of efficiency. These men could attend parades once a week to refresh themselves, but, of course, they would always remain ready and waiting for the call if and when it comes. If this method is adopted it will ease the difficulty of providing weapons for the new recruits who will shortly be joining the units. Then there is the question of retaining a proportion of the younger middle-aged men between the ages of 30 and 40. This

would bridge the gap between the very young and the older men, and it would strengthen the whole fabric of the Home Guard.
My first tribute was to the men themselves, but this occasion should not be allowed to pass without paying a tribute —my right hon. and gallant Friend may think it somewhat unexpected—to the War Office, and particularly to my right hon. and gallant Friend and the Undersecretary, who have given so much of their time and their ability in supporting the Home Guard in its efforts to make itself proficient and efficient. Many of us remember that grim day in May, 1940, when the War Office, as my right hon. and gallant Friend said, opened the sluice gates of service to the men of Britain. They expected a stream, but they got a torrent, and they were almost overwhelmed, but, owing largely to the enthusiastic determination of my right hon. and gallant Friend and the Under-Secretary, they were able to cope with the problem. They have provided us with uniforms and arms, and here let me interject that there are possibly too many types of arms being issued—we are simple-minded people in the Home Guard, and we prefer to know perfectly two, three or four weapons, rather than have strange new devices which are too complicated for our simple minds. They have provided us with arms and equipment and training, and they have produced efficiency. Despite the weekly volume of criticism which we find in the Sunday papers, some constructive and some destructive, the War Office deserve warm congratulations from the country as a whole, especially at a time when they were refitting the Regular Army after Dunkirk, providing the sinews of war for the Army of the Nile and trying to meet the demands of the conscripts of the new Army. It is a fine achievement and, on behalf of other Members, and of the Home Guard also, it is fitting that I should pay this tribute.
There are one or two points, apart from the sucesses that the War Office have so far achieved, on which I should like to make suggestions. Hitherto, zone and battalion areas have been more or less made to conform with police divisions. That was all right at the beginning—it was the simplest way out of the difficulty at the time—but now that the Home Guard has been made to fit into the


general defensive scheme of the country, strategic requirements should be considered and Home Guard areas and districts arranged accordingly. I now come to a somewhat delicate point, the raison d'être of zone and battalion commands. I may be introducing a very unique suggestion, but I am not sure whether zone commanders are not a bit superfluous. My view is that it would be better to create more sub-areas under efficient, selected, Regular officers and then take some selected zone commanders to help them as Home Guard advisers, just as has lately been done in London, and I think you would get greater efficiency and more direct contact between the sub-area commanders and the operational commanders under them. After a year and a half of experience I have come to the conclusion that the battalion is not the tactical unit. It is the company, and possibly sometimes the platoon.
I have been trying to inculcate the battalion esprit de corps in a battalion with which I am associated, and I find—I should not like to say this outside—that it does not work. The company is obviously the unit of action and the centre round which the men congregate and to which they give their loyalty. It is not the battalion. So I am wondering whether it would not be better to divide sub-areas into districts in which all the mobile units and all the static units—the utility units— would be under the operational command of the battalion commander. Call him the district commander. Take away the battalion idea altogether. It was a good thing in the early days, because it associated itself rather with the military role, but I am sure that the experience of other battalion commanders will confirm that the company, and possibly in country areas the platoon, must be regarded as the tactical unit. If the present battalion commander is given command of the static as well as the mobile units, he will be able to dovetail all the defensive schemes into a general defensive scheme for his area, whereas at present many battalion commanders do not know where their static units are, do not know their strength, do not know what weapons they have and do not know what standard of training they have. I am sure that is the right way of making each district in a sub-area responsible to a sub-area commander and responsible for the entire defence of his area.
With regard to the employment of women, I strongly support the point of view of the hon. Member for West Fulham (Dr. Summerskill). I think she has been most convincing, as well as very persuasive, in her arguments. I have seen the job these women have done during the past year in the Home Guard units with which I am associated—clerks, cooks, drivers, orderlies, stretcher bearers and any kind of job that would release a man with a rifle. I can mention a lot of others. I understand that the A.T.S. are discarding their uniforms for a smarter and more up-to-date one. They would do very well for the Women's Home Guard auxiliary force. They must have uniforms, otherwise they will not be able to get about when the balloon goes up. I am certain that they would not only add to the pleasure of being a Home Guard, but they would also serve a very useful purpose. The women of this country have obviously decided that they are going to be in the Home Guard, and the Government had much better yield gracefully.
In a Debate last year I raised the question of paper, and I want to congratulate my hon. Friend on the diminution of the clouds of paper that used to descend upon us this time last year. There has been a great falling off and a considerable lessening of returns, so that the life of the unit commander has been eased and he has time to give to his proper job of training his men to be efficient soldiers. The Territorial Association seems to look upon the Home Guard as the child who has replaced their lost Territorial Force, and, like all tender mothers, they have naturally tended to give the child too many instructions. The only complaint I would make is that there is still some duality of control between the Territorial Association and the Area Command.
I would ask my hon. Friend to pay some attention to the present distribution of weapons, which is an important point. I think that the Home Guard are beginning to suffer from a superfluity of types and that there has not been a right judgment shown in allocating the different types of weapons to different areas. In the city, where there is likely to be a limited field of fire, machine guns, tommy guns, Browning guns and grenades are the obvious weapons, but among a lot of static units in the cities there are too many rifles which should be given


to the country units where there is an ample field of fire. There should be a redistribution of the existing weapons so that the country units are given antitank weapons, Northover projectors and so on, which are far more valuable in the sort of invasion we are likely to face than any other weapons. This would give greater satisfaction to all the different types of Home Guard units and it would make the best use of the existing weapons. As regards the training of the Home Guard, I think that it is going on admirable lines, but I would suggest that there should be more lectures by first-class regular officers and other types of temporary officers. We know Captain Peter Fleming, who is an admirable instructor, and men like him should go round and help to break the monotony of life in the Home Guard. Films also should be utilised more. Courses, which are at present admirable, suffer from one defect, and that is that many men cannot afford to take part in them. Whenever a course is held volunteers should be paid for that period, because they cannot afford to attend if they have to give up their work for three or four days or a week. As the nation is seeking to make them more efficient it is only right that the nation should compensate them for the loss of their wages in civil life.
There is one question which I have been asked to raise, because it is fundamental to the strategic rôle which the Home Guard will have to play in an invasion. It refers to the London taxi battalion. They are a unique body of fine, virile men. They have approximately 1,700 vehicles, with drivers, and there is a maintenance staff of skilled artificers numbering about 170. Those men, who are divided into sections, with their own officers, and with garages at appropriate centres, are ready at any moment to take troops to a threatened point. In that way they will fulfil a most valuable function in connection with the defence of London. The age of the average taxi-driver is from 40 to 50, and under the new call-up nearly 70 per cent. of those men will be drafted into the Services and the whole usefulness of that battalion will be destroyed. The London taxi-driver is a most knowledgeable man, he knows his way about London better than almost any other class of people, and it will be just disastrous if we are

deprived of his assistance in getting troops quickly to threatened points. Therefore, I would ask my hon. and gallant Friend, in the interests of the defence of London, to make representations to the Minister of Labour and National Service to leave these men in the London taxi battalion as they are. That is all I have to say, and I am sorry for having taken up so much time while so many others wish to speak. It is only because of my desire and determination that this grand force shall be used to the best possible advantage.

Mr. Wedgwood: I should like to remind the hon. Member for West Fulham (Dr. Summer-skill) that Hitler is not the only person in this world who believes that a woman's sphere is children, Church and kitchen. We can only hope that the Secretary of State for War does not agreee with Hitler. This Debate has been one long chorus of praise for the War Office. I do not think it is good for this House or the country that it should receive such undiluted praise, and I propose to take the other side. As I see it, the War Office has quite unnecessarily destroyed a free association of comradeship in duty, and is replacing it by a second-rate edition of the regular Army which will be much less efficient for the purpose we had in view in instituting the Home Guard.
What did the War Office want? Did they want more men for the Home Guard? In that case, why did they not encourage recruiting? Why was all recruiting left to the commanding officers, to be paid for out of their own pockets? What effort has been made by the right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench to increase recuriting for the Home Guard or to make the actual training of the Home Guard more popular? If they had had more ammunition, more grenades and more of those Brock's fireworks which have the appearance of real grenades but were not so dangerous in actual effect, as well as more supplies of other kinds, there would be quite an adequate number of Home Guards, people who were more anxious to remain in the Home Guard, than you could get by periodical speeches alleging that invasion was imminent.
What people want is live training. They have been given the live training, but without implements which would


have made that training really practical and real. You could not have worked up the old Home Guard to provide your gun crews or your balloon barrages and others things that you want, by voluntary effort. The objection to women is merely an illustration that you did not want just a home defensive force. So I say you have destroyed unnecessarily the free society and the free association which was the essence of the old Home Guard. I am thinking of my little village, with its platoon, whose commander used to be my gardener, meeting night after night and going on guard. They were related to, or knew, everybody else in the Home Guard, and they called each other by their Christian names. It was a social club, a body of people who were making a voluntary sacrifice for what they believed to be the safety and honour of their country and their homes.
The man with two stripes or three stripes was one of them. They were all friends together. It was an admirable example of what every democratic Army ought to be. We are altering all that and smashing it, and substituting for it the old class, caste-ridden Army system, with discipline and officers instead of almost affectionate co-operation. I say that that is a danger to our objects. Can hon. Members deny that as soon as you make the Force compulsory you start the same distance between the non-commissioned officer and the private, and the non-commissioned officer and commissioned officer that we have in the old Army, and which requires rank to inspire respect instead of native leadership, friendship and comradeship? When, in the old days, the platoon sergeant said, "If you don't like it, you can leave," the man did not leave. Now the man has to obey or has to face a civil court, with a £10 fine and a month's imprisonment. Cannot hon. Members see that we are changing the relationship between the three-stripe man and the rank and file?. Instead of their being friends, you will get a servile attitude, the servant attitude. It is the sergeant-major attitude we all know in the Army. You lose the comradeship, the equality, and you gain what? A little bit more prompt obedience, possibly, but you destroy the spirit which was intended to defend England. Do realise, before you go into this, what you are losing. Not a word has been said about it to-day. Do you think there is nothing in a free

society as compared with a bound association, bound by law and the threat of punishment? You will get your men, but they will not be the same men.
I now come to my third point. What are you substituting for this gallant body of men who are doing everything for the love of their country? A compulsory body, more numerous perhaps, but will it be more efficient? You are getting rid of the people like me, and others in this House; you are getting rid of all the people who fought in the last war. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes. Ask the people in our own Home Guard. I want to know, Must we give in our notice within a month from now or a month from the issue of the Regulations?

Captain Margesson: I have said that a date will be specified in the Regulations.

Mr. Wedgwood: The time by which we must give in our notices unless we wish to remain will be specified in the Regulations. That is all right. It will give us some time, and I hope you postpone the Regulations indefinitely. See what you are sacrificing. Is it not true to say that the real value of the Home Guard is that it is very well trained? They have been very well trained, infinitely better trained than the old volunteers, but it is not training alone that makes fighters. What matters is the practice of facing death in the defence of your country. The hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) instanced the taxi-cab drivers. I think they are most useful, both here in London and in other towns. How can they go on under the 48 hours a month rule? They cannot.

Sir T. Moore: My right hon. Friend does not understand the position of the taxi battalion. They are not compelled, and they have not undertaken, to do any military training, but merely to turn out in military uniform for the job of transporting men to other parts of London where the danger threatens.

Mr. Wedgwood: But are they not useful? Are they not as useful as you or me—especially the old soldiers? But they will have to return their uniform after all they have done.

Sir T. Moore: I was talking about the 48 hours training.

Mr. Wedgwood: Exactly. They will have to return their uniform and cease to


be members. Would it not be possible to allow old volunteers to retain their uniform and to be called up in case of invasion? I can tell you, the best training you can have for fighting is fighting. The experience of fighting is of value, even if your training in modern methods may not be so good. As a matter of fact, there is nothing in which the infection of courage is more important than in actual fighting. Some of the old soldiers who were in the last war may not be so good at signalling or bomb throwing, they may not be able to do 48 hours a month, but they have their value as a stiffening to the rest of the Home Guard.

Captain Margesson: Did not the right hon. Gentleman listen to that part of my speech in which I said that this question of training would be dealt with in a sensible and sympathetic manner? His words are very wise; we do not wish the old soldiers to leave. We are as aware as anybody of the value of the "old sweats" who fought in the last war.

Mr. Wedgwood: They are not "old sweats." That is all very well, but two months after these Regulations are promulgated they will be liable, unless they have sent in their resignations, to be subjected to the 48-hour rule.

Captain Margesson: It is a maximum.

Mr. Wedgwood: How can they know? It depends upon the battalion commander, I suppose. Really, you must make it clear to these people that any change in the maximum hours will not be used against them, that they will be able to resign afterwards without being punished. Why should these people, who would be extremely useful in case of an actual invasion, be debarred from helping their country later on? Why expel them? Why prevent them from returning if necessary, if they want to? I cannot conceive that this change can make for a more efficient Army. What I do see is that it makes for a more mobile Army. Those of us who cannot march long distances, who cannot throw grenades long distances but can still sit behind broken-down houses with rifles and Tommy-guns, setting a good example to the others, we shall have our part to play; we had our part to play in the old Home Guard. What is the new Home

Guard for? Is it a victory of the War Office over the Home Guard? Are the Home Guard to be part of the Army like the old Territorials, mobile, or are they to be as they were originally intended to be, defenders of their own homes? What is the policy of the War Office in the case of invasion? Do they intend us to defend London street by street, our country village by village, to fight in the hills, to scorch the earth and let the invader secure nothing? Or do they intend to use the Home Guard, who would willingly die in defence of their homes, to manoeuvre, leaving their loved ones behind to the mercy of the foe? I say that that was not the object which brought men to the Home Guard, which inspired this movement. We do not want to be part of the Army. We want to defend our homes, and for that every man who can fire a rifle ought to be allowed to play his part.

Mr. Robertson: I feel that the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has a complete misconception of the reasons for the creation of the Home Guard. Surely they were never so parochial as to defend their own doorsteps only. Surely their duty is to defend the community and the country. I find myself entirely out of sympathy with him when he suggested that the Home Guard would not be proud to join the Army or the Territorial Army. I have never understood why it did not become the Territorial Army in the first place, because the great Secretary of State who introduced the Territorial Force created a force for home defence, and what is the Home Guard? Many of the difficulties from which we have suffered in the Home Guard would have been prevented if we had been members of the Territorial Army. We should have had an Act of Parliament. We should not have been coming here every week with some niggling scheme of compensation, so that men should be paid for this and that; but we should have had drill halls, and all manner of things. I say to the Secretary of State for War, who made such a brilliant and clear speech to-day, and who produced proposals which will commend themselves to every man in the Home Guard, that I hope nothing that has been said here to-day will cause the Front Bench to weaken in the slightest degree.
The hon. Member for Walsall (Sir G. Schuster) spoke of lack of training, and drew upon his own experiences. Because he is a Member of Parliament and a very important industrialist, his time is limited. That is not true of the majority of officers in the Home Guard. They have taken up that form of public service only, and they devote many more hours than 48 a month to the Home Guard. The hon. and learned Member for the University of Wales (Mr. E. Evans) said that we must not take the 40-year-olds out of the Forces. I hope that they will be taken out of the Forces for higher service in the field Army. The Home Guard will make good any deficiencies. I would like to tell you what ran through my mind when the hon. and learned Member was speaking. My section sergeant was a man of about 40. He was too young for the last war and he was on the old side for this war up to now; but he was most efficient, a brilliant man with machine guns, and he did a great deal of good in our section. But he is now an Air Force officer engaged in ground defence duties on aerodromes, doing much more valuable work. I say, go ahead, and take these men: their Home Guard training will make them more efficient in the field Army. The field Army in many parts of the country has been denuded by being called upon for too many guards. Many of these jobs could be done by the Home Guard. Whatever hopes we may have had for this force have been more than realised. I would like my right hon. and gallant Friend to consider using the Home Guard to an even greater extent, for taking over the duties of the field Army at home, and releasing men for Libya and elsewhere. The fact that many of us are older than we were 25 years ago does not mean that we are no longer any use. We may not be able to run so fast, but we beat the Hun last time, and we will do it again.
I would like to see training directed more to attack. Going through woods without making a noise, without breaking a twig, is not the way to do that. We need to go at them. The Home Guard will fight as George Washington's army fought, and as the Boer armies fought. I have not the slightest doubt that, when the time comes, they will tear the enemy limb from limb. I hope that my right hon. and gallant Friend will stand by his

proposals, and that, in spite of anything that has been said, he will not give way, particularly in regard to women. There is no need for women in the Home Guard. We have 2,000,00 men. We have found it difficult to employ them, and to equip them. There are plenty of production duties—part-time work on munitions is one of them—and this great patriotic desire which has been spoken of by the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) and by the hon. Member for West Fulham (Dr. Summerskill) can be directed towards such work. My post-bag, like that of all Members, is very varied, and I have not had one letter from a woman in my constituency suggesting that women should come into the Home Guard. I hope that my right hon. and gallant Friend will stand by his guns.

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: I had no intention when I came to the House to-day of intervening in this Debate, although I think I am the only Member of the House who has had the rather sad distinction of being demoted from the rank of sergeant to that of volunteer. I hope it was not lack of merit; it was when I went off abroad, and I did not think that anyone had a right to retain stripes unless he intended to be on the job. In the first place, one of the difficulties about the Home Guard at the present time is that people have given up believing in an invasion of this country, and, therefore, you have more and more people tending to slacken off. It may be that there will not be an invasion, but I am convinced that the need for men of the British fighting services to go overseas will become greater and greater, and anyone who reads the papers and sees how the war is extending all over the world can have no doubt about the decided importance of having the largest and best trained Home Guard possible.
Nobody has a greater admiration in this House than I have for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood), and I share his passionate desire that, as far as possible, the Home Guard should be retained as a force of individuals, and, as far as possible, as a force of volunteers, but I am sure that even that consideration must give place to the problem of man-power. We must have every man and woman who can carry and use a weapon trained in this country because the time may come


when almost every able-bodied man will be called overseas to carry on the struggle in various parts of the world. It must not then be said that respect for this voluntary system, which, I think with the right hon. Gentleman, is so important, has in any way impaired the nation's efficiency. The Home Guard is a very remarkable organisation because it has succeeded with that particular British genius in combining the training of man-power for fighting with that equally vital business of keeping people in industry. There is still a tendency to under-estimate the drain that we shall have on our national resources in this country. If only we had more men and women in industry at the present time we would not have had such a dangerous situation, for example, as that in the Singapore area. We must combine a large force of trained men and women with a large production in our industries. How are we to do it?
On the whole, the White Paper goes a long way in the required direction, and it avoids destroying the spirit of the men who came forward in the early days of the Home Guard. That must be done as much as possible. I am convinced myself that most of these men will be glad of the measure of compulsion contained in the White Paper. That measure of compulsion will either remove the slackers who came in—there were not many of them, but we all know that there were some—or will make them do their duty. Inevitably, as the demand of industry grows more urgent and more men are called up on ordinary military duties, the rural areas will have a difficult time. Indeed, they are losing more and more men now. I think that those men who have done a very valuable job will be encouraged by the measure of compulsion in this White Paper, because it will get rid of the slackers. I think this is important. Men who work all day on a farm may not have a very great desire to go out all night, but it is in the country areas that the Home Guard will be most valuable in the event of an invasion. We must not destroy the keenness of these men.
I suggest that there is a lot to be said for the idea of allowing the original Home Guard to retain its voluntary status and allowing those who are conscripted to be conscripted as auxiliaries into, perhaps, separate units, or at any rate, given a

special badge. I think you must make a division between those people who have been really keen about this business, and who have given a lot of time to it, and the slackers and those people who are now to be conscripted. Otherwise, I do not think you will retain in the original Home Guard the enthusiasm that is so important a factor of this great Force. Lastly, I should like to say a word on the question of employing women for the Home Guard. It seems to me to be the most damnable nonsense at a time when the country is in the greatest possible danger for anyone to have the nerve to get up and say that a woman has no right to defend her country. Invasion might happen at any moment. We have seen it in Greece and countries all over Europe which at the last minute found that they had not taken the necessary precautions.
For various reasons I will not in public Debate draw attention to certain lack of equipment which we know is felt by the Home Guard and the danger this entails, especially as regards signalling facilities. I do not believe that for a small country like ours we have anything like enough apparatus and machinery for making quite sure that this Force, which will have to hold areas until the regulars come up, has the proper means of communication. I do not want to go into that now, but it would be absurd beyond words, when we have had example after example of countries being overrun, if we were later compelled to say, "If only we had taken precautions at the time." We have examples in our own defences. If we had only taken sufficient precautions at Singapore we should not now be in such great danger there. Therefore, I wish hon. Members would not get up and say we must not teach women how to shoot and make silly, futile and petty old jokes about the sexes. I hope the Government will do everything they can to give every man, woman and child of 16, or anybody else, the proper training so that if the enemy should come they will receive the welcome which we want to give them.

Mr. Jewson: I am glad to have the opportunity of saying a few words of welcome for the new proposals which have been put forward for the Home Guard. I know something about the working of our local Home Guard, because, by good fortune, I


happened to be the first man in my district to become a member of the L.D.V. Now I am a platoon commander with three distant villages to look after. The problem with which the War Office have to deal is a dual problem. There are the city battalions which, no doubt, can be organised successfully, much on the lines of the Territorial Army, and there are the country battalions which are an entirely different problem. It would never do to try to treat them in the same way. What I am anxious to emphasise is that we must not stretch the country Home Guard on the Procrustean bed of Army organisation. They must be left a very large measure of discretion in training and in all other arrangements. I am glad to find in the first paragraph of the White Paper the very important word "elastic," because it is inevitable, if we are to succeed with our Home Guard arrangements in the country, that we must use elastic and not red tape. I am encouraged by the experience of the right hon. and gallant Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Colonel Colville) to hope that we may see that done.
It was a great encouragement also to hear the Secretary of State say that he regards the Home Guard as being of vital importance. We have heard similar sentiments expressed by the Prime Minister. I hope that that belief will now drift downwards to the other people who are concerned. It is only a fortnight since an officer in a Norfolk battalion, who was being interviewed at a recruiting office, when he mentioned his qualification of being in the Home Guard, was told that the Home Guard did not count. I hope that spirit will be removed from all those who have to deal with the Home Guard in future, and that we may rely on those in charge at the War Office to see that that happens. I am sure that the measures of compulsion that are proposed will be welcomed by the present members of the Home Guard, whose only grouse of any moment in my district has been that certain men were walking about doing nothing when they ought to have been in the Home Guard. I do not think we need fear that the combination of the two will cause any trouble.
Another point that I want to make concerns again the importance of the Home Guard. The liaison between the Regular units and the Home Guard is not what it ought to be. I very much hope that steps

will be taken to impress upon the Regular Army that they must form and keep up liaison with their local Home Guard. We cannot do it from the Home Guard side because the Army units come and go, but we are always there and they know where to find us and keep in touch with us. Even during manoeuvres that has not been done in the past. I am fortunate in having the headquarters of my own platoon in my own house, and at the last manoeuvres the armoured section of the local Regulars also made their headquarters there. After two hours of manoeuvres I happened to go into their room and found it empty. I was told that they had had orders to withdraw, and had gone. They had done so without communicating in any way with the members of the Home Guard. This illustrates that something needs to be put right.
I was glad to hear the Secretary of State mention the question of the 16-year-olds, because I was disappointed not to find anything about them in the White Paper. Speaking for those working in villages, I hope very much that we shall be allowed to use the 16-year-olds for certain duties. In the three villages with which I am concerned, there are several boys of that age, who are very keen and are always turning up at parades and asking us to give them a job. I cannot for the life of me see why they should not be allowed to do something. These boys would be extremely useful in country districts where there are great difficulties in communications. I welcome these proposals, and I hope that the Home Guard, which I am sure will give a very good account of itself if called upon to do so, will be even more successful than it has been hitherto.

Lieut.-Colonel Astor: I wish to differ on one point which was raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) in regard to battalions in the Home Guard. I agree that companies and platoons are suitable units for training, but in some cases circumstances differ. Some battalions have been fortunate, because the men in the companies have been engaged in the same civilian employment in the same neighbourhood. A great number of them are old soldiers who have the regimental spirit—they are used to being part of a battalion or regiment—and it is not so much a case of developing that spirit but of renewing it. The men are very ready


to go into the streets in an emergency, and, in some cases, the best place to defend a building is outside, because there you can keep the enemy at arm's length. Some battalions, as battalions, have done a good deal of training in street fighting, and I believe that in this case they can do a very useful job in harassing enemy parties which have infiltrated, and in preventing them from establishing themselves. The organisation in districts seems to me to be perfectly sound. I believe that it is all the better for a district to have a mobile reserve ready to act and strike quickly. In one or two districts I know, some of the companies are purely static, and, by the very nature of their employment, they can be nothing else. On the other hand, there are companies which are mobile, and are prepared to be mobile, but in their case the men could not turn out in an emergency in sufficient force to do anything effective. If they were organised as a battalion, I believe that they could do an extremely useful job.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: The hon. and gallant Member for Dover (Lieut.-Colonel Astor) has just given a fine example of the difficulties of organising the Home Guard, for, while much of what he said is undoubtedly true in some quarters of the country, it is exactly the reverse of what is true in my own part of the country. That is one of the difficulties we always have to keep before the War Office and the higher command. I do not think the arguments used by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood) really bear any relation to the facts whatever. It is a tragedy that one so gallant should be in the Home Guard but not of it. Had he been of it, he could not possibly have spoken of these proposals. in the way he did. But I think we have a very grave responsibility, in one connection, the moment that compulsion is applied. I feel that we must see that officers of the Home Guard—I speak as a junior officer myself—are up to their jobs and from the very fact that compulsion is being applied take them more seriously than they have been taken before. There is, possibly, a tendency to distrust the suggestion of compulsion unless the present volunteer is completely satisfied that those who are to command his unit are fully and efficiently trained.
To come back to the question of organisation, some have suggested the battalion, others the company, and others the platoon as the unit. I should say it is impossible to generalise on that issue But cannot we have a clear statement that there is no intention merely to copy the Army form of organisation and establishment? If it is possible to designate some types of area and district where compulsion should be applied, and others where it should not, is it not equally possible to designate certain districts where one form of organisation is desirable whereas an entirely different form is desirable perhaps only 10 or 15 miles away? I am terrified lest with the use on paper of the word "elastic" it should be considered that the peg to stretch the elastic must always be the existing Army organisation and not an organisation which relates to the efficiency of the Home Guard as a force.
There is one other point in the White Paper with which I am somewhat concerned and that is the actual maximum hours beyond which it will not be right and proper or legal for men to be worked either on duty or at training. If I apply those hours to the unit with which I am associated, we appear to have acted, for the last 12 months, contrary to the law as it will stand now, because I think that in any one month, over 75 per cent. of the volunteers served more than 48 hours on duty alone, without counting time for training at all. It is suggested that by a system of compulsion in an area such as that possibly more men will be pulled in, but I very much doubt whether that is the case when you consider those working on the land, and those engaged in Civil Defence other than in the Home Guard, and when you remember that those not on the land are, perhaps, working in factories. Many of them will join the local factory units and not the general unit in a rural district. Therefore I hope the hours will not be strictly limited to 48 in all cases. I am not suggesting that the door should be left wide open for local commanders to insist that more than 48 hours should be done, but if a platoon asks for permission to do more than 48 hours, I think that permission should be granted. It may appear an absurd suggestion, but if my hon. and gallant Friend examines the form that duty takes in scattered rural districts and the way it


is being carried out, I think be will realise that there is some practicability in the point.
I support the plea that has been made for the enlistment of lads. I am not sure whether it is implied that they should be enlisted only for certain static forms of defence, in connection with antiaircraft batteries and so on, or whether they should be enlisted generally to assist the Home Guard but I hope permission will be given to enrol them especially to be used as messengers, runners and cyclists. They are of more use than more heavily built men as runners across open country and over the hills. I could not possibly agree with many of the remarks made about women being enrolled in the Home Guard. If that were to come about, I should not only seriously consider attempting to resign my commission in the Home Guard I should certainly do it. But that does not mean to say that women could not be trained in the use of certain forms of primitive weapons to assist in the defence of certain localities, which is a different matter altogether. In order that they should get that training there is no earthly reason why they should belong to the Home Guard. They could be taught the use of those weapons, but I can see no earthly reason for enrolling women in the Home Guard.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for War (Sir Edward Grigg): The House, which is always in touch with the feeling of the nation, could not, I think, have provided a more appropriate setting for this Debate on the new Measures which are proposed for the Home Guard than the discussion which took place on the point whether we should adjourn at Christmas for a shorter or a longer time. In that discussion Members in every quarter of the House showed their realisation of the intense urgency and gravity of the situation in which we find ourselves. I am glad to think that in this Debate, with one single exception, the exception of our well known individualist who belongs, very strangely, to a party which is not notable for individualists, Members in all parts of the House have joined in supporting the proposals which have been put forward by my right hon. and gallant Friend. I rise only for the purpose of taking up some of the very valuable suggestions which have been made in the

course of this discussion, but before doing that I feel that as we are about to turn a new page in the history of the Home Guard, I ought for a moment to look back to praise those who made the Home Guard and thank them for their immortal services. I do that most gladly, because at the War Office I have been associated with the Home Guard from the very first moment when the appeal was made by my right hon. Friend the present Foreign Secretary.
It is often said that the War Office, the Army Council and the Army generally do not show adequate appreciation of the Home Guard, and I wish to take this opportunity of saying that there never was a force more thoroughly appreciated by the military authorities than the Home Guard. A most astonishing feature of the Home Guard—almost a miracle—was the speed with which it was enrolled. Statistics are tiresome, but I think that if I give the House the figures of those weeks, they will be more eloquent than any sentences which I can frame. The appeal made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was made on 14th May last year. The Regulation establishing the Home Guard was pased on 17th May. By the end of that month, in less than a fortnight, many hundreds of thousands were already enrolled. Before the end of July over 1,500,000 men enrolled, and the numbers were still mounting so rapidly and the prospect of finding weapons for them was so remote that the War Office was obliged to call a halt and say that there was to be no more enrolment in the Home Guard except for filling gaps or creating certain new units in factories and so on. That is, I think everybody will agree, an absolutely astonishing record. Clearly such an achievement would have been impossible unless the appeal had met throughout the country a passionate desire that already existed in men to defend their country and had released that spirit like a flood of pent-up waters. It was a reflex of the spirit which breathed in the Prime Minister's speeches at that time, when he spoke to us and the Home Guard of the resolve and determination with which the nation meant to meet the frightful danger in which it stood.
The formation of the Home Guard reacted on the moral of the nation as a whole. It stiffened our sinews, it summoned up our blood and gave an edge of


steel to our national resolve. The effect at home was paralleled, moreover, by the effect abroad, for it undoubtedly made a great impression oversea—more particularly in the Dominions and in the United States. It is also perhaps worth noting now that the German broadcasts found it necessary at that time to counter the effect of the formation of the Home Guard by declaring that we were having to release delinquents serving sentences in prison in order to find men for its ranks. All this would have been impossible, of course, without the spirit which the emergency evoked, but it would also have been impossible without the services of the men who came forward to help in organisation.
Before we turn this new page I want to say that we in this House cannot really estimate the debt which the country owes to those who took part in the first organisation of the Home Guard —to the Territorial Army Associations, which fortunately were still in existence, to many old and distinguished officers in the Services who came forward without thought of time or anything else and devoted themselves to the work, to the lords-lieutenant and to a whole host of patriotic men throughout the country in every village, town and city, who worked without stint in order that the Home Guard should be built up. My hon. Friend the Member for South Leeds (Mr. Charleton) said this was done without much help from the War Office. That is true. I do not know how the War Office could have undertaken the task at that time. It was a task which the country had to do for itself. My hon. Friend said the War Office did not give much help at first with arms, but that was not the fault of the War Office. It was the fault of this House and the whole country. The War Office could not produce arms on demand. We were paying for an attitude of mind which goes back many years. That ought to be remembered when taunts are thrown at the War Office for not doing this and that. Who is responsible? Surely it is this House, not the War Office.
The first phase, the improvisation of the Home Guard, ended with the Battle of Britain. The second phase came into existence a year ago, when we went in for considerable reorganisation, estab-

lished commissions, introduced greater efficiency into the training, improved, although we did not complete, the equipment, and made for much closer co-ordination in actual defence schemes with the Regular Army. This gave rise to a much complained of flood of paper, but I am glad to hear from some hon. Members during this Debate that that flood of paper has abated now. We have done our best to see that it was reduced. Those two phases are over, and we open a new chapter to-day. The spirit expressed in the Debate exactly reflects what I believe will be the patriotic spirit in which the Home Guard will accept these new measures. I do not for one moment believe that they will weaken the Force, as was suggested by the right hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood). I believe on the contrary that they will raise its fighting character and efficiency to even greater heights. We have to face the fact that in introducing compulsion in relation to a given force it is difficult to do so in regard to some men and not in regard to others. Uniform obligation is the hall-mark of comradeship in arms. That is the meaning of "uniform." Everybody who has served in a military force will recognise the truth of that statement. It is very difficult, when you have men in the same village, or in the same street, under totally different obligations in regard to the Home Guard, one man saying, "I don't think I will turn out this morning, as it is rather wet," and another man being obliged to turn out. That would be an intolerable situation inside any unit. The Home Guard itself recognises, and so does everybody else, that once you bring in compulsion it must be universal.
The only way, therefore, in which it will not be universal is in the raising of extra men. The compulsion to train is established all over the country, and powers to raise men by compulsion are also established all over the country; but these recruiting powers will be used only where more men are required. We do not want to use them where men are not required. The reason why we want them in some districts and not in others is the distribution of the population in this country. I hope that that will be understood. There has been a great deal of talk in this Debate about inequality of compulsion. What is the fact? The


Home Guard is not well distributed, from a military and operational point of view, because, in this country as in all other countries, great masses of population live in the cities and much sparser populations in the rural areas. The Home Guard is naturally strongest where the population is most dense, and is naturally weakest where the population is thin. We shall need to think of compulsion only where the population is thin. Whereas in some parts of the country the Home Guard needs only a comparatively small proportion of the available men, in other parts it needs every available man. That position has still to be faced, and that is why there will be compulsion in certain places for all in the raising of men, and no compulsion elsewhere. In that, there may be differences between one part of the country and another, but there will be no difference whatever in any other respect. The Home Guard will all be organised on the same plan, subject to the same principles, the same sanction and the same discipline.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme said—I took down his words—"You will get your men, but they will not be the same men." I say to him with absolute confidence that we will get our men, and that they will be the same men. They will be exactly the same as the men who have already, during the past 18 months, rendered splendid service to the country in the ranks of the Home Guard, and their spirit will be the same.
Without keeping the House too long, I will now turn to some of the points which have been made in various speeches, but before I deal with points of detail, there are three on which many hon. Members have insisted and on which I should like to lay particular emphasis. The first is with regard to use of discretion in requiring the maximum of 48 hours during which people may be compelled to turn out for duty or training. I want to emphasise and re-emphasise that the utmost discretion will be used in this respect by the local commanders, who know local conditions. I would also like to point out another thing to the House. After all, the sanction behind this is a civil court. The military authorities will not go to the civil court with a bad case, and, furthermore, the employer who feels that his men are being unreasonably de-

tained can state his case, as well as the man himself if he feels that he is being unreasonably treated.
One or two hon. Members have said that they would like an appeal to a tribunal. But there is a tribunal, the established civil tribunals of the country. What more do they want than that? It is true that the sanction is only in the background, but the fact that the military authorities have to be able to state a reasonable case before a court is a great safeguard even in regard to what my hon. Friend opposite was pleased to call the "Prussian type" of officers, who are, I think, much rarer in the Army these days than he supposes. I do not believe for a second that the military authorities will abate the consideration which they have shown in the past for the conditions under which men serve. They have known all along which men were slacking when they did not turn out and which men were really unable to turn out, and they will continue to do so. Even in the case of the occasional officer who may be inclined to outrun his powers, it should be remembered that there is an appeal behind him and that he must prove his case. There need therefore be no anxiety whatever that the compulsory power to call out for duty or training for 48 hours a month will be used unfairly to the men concerned, or to the detriment of their work in the factories or on the farms. Local commanders know that the cows have to be milked and so on, and I, personally, believe that we can give a most complete and absolute assurance to the House and the country in that respect.
Another point which has been made by many speakers is the need for consideration of the older men. We do not wish that the older men who are still fit should leave the Home Guard. They are most valuable, and are a part of its spirit, but if they find that it is becoming too much for them, I think they may count on the most generous consideration in obtaining their release from Home Guard duties. I want to give an assurance about that too. The same applies to men who, having accepted the obligation, find that, because their occupation has changed or because they have moved about the country, they cannot carry out the obligations they have undertaken. They will receive the utmost consideration from the military authorities. I have not seen any-


thing in the 18 months' history of the Home Guard showing any lack of consideration in this way by Home Guard officers and remember, the great mass of Home Guard officers will be the same, carrying out exactly the same duties in the same way.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: The hon. Gentleman did not quite answer the question as to what the position would be where it is found necessary, in order to carry out duties in an efficient manner, to do more than 48 hours in a month.

Sir E. Grigg: Forty-eight hours is the maximum for which compulsion will be applied. Many units train for many more hours than that already. Nobody is going to interfere with volunteers if they train all day and night if they want to. Finally, it has been suggested, in one or two speeches only, that the character of the Home Guard might be altered by this, that it might be more closely linked up to the Regular Army in the way of discipline, formality, routine and so on. Let me assure all Members of the House that there is to be no change whatever in the character of the Home Guard. We are introducing this for the sake of giving it real efficiency, and to protect those who have done their duty in the Home Guard against those who so far have not done so. Apart from that, we are not going to alter the character of the Home Guard at all.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Leeds (Mr. Charleton) spoke of the delay in the issuing of signalling lamps. There has been delay, but a very good distribution of them is forthcoming almost immediately. I do not think he need have any anxiety on that account, although it was a perfectly sound point that he made. He asked about utility units—railway units and so on. The difficulty about bringing them into other units of the Home Guard is that the men in the railway units, etc., are constantly moving from place to place. Others, like the Post Office, are really better organised by their own utility undertaking than they would be by any local battalion of the Home Guard.

Mr. Charleton: Many railwaymen spend the whole of their railway life on one station.

Sir E. Grigg: Where that is the case, we will look into it. The main reason for

these separate units is that men are moving about. The hon. and gallant Member for Brighton (Major Marlowe) addressed us in a maiden speech on which I should like to compliment him. I hope we shall hear from him often in the future. Since he did introduce a controversial note, I must say a word on that point. He wanted every man and woman in the country trained by the Army for defence. They are all being trained for some form of defence, but not, of course, by the Army, which is responsible only for armed defence. After all, the defence of the country does not only mean being able to fire off rifles and throw grenades. Other services are equally vital, and I should like to say that also to the hon. Member for West Fulham (Dr. Summerskill). The idea of concentrating on one form of defence to the exclusion of others would mean complete collapse of the Civil Defence services. But quite apart from that, I hope the hon. and gallant Member realises. when he calls upon us to make of the Home Guard a self-contained Army, not secondary troops, that that would mean depleting factories and paralysing agriculture. The Home Guard must remain a part-time service. We must go on recognising that its members have their first duty elsewhere, and that they are making the most only of the time that they can spare for military service in the Home Guard. That is the answer to all who say, "Organise the Home Guard more completely, and enable it to take its place as part of the Regular Army." It can never do that so long as it is a part-time force, organised to fight in the immediate neighbourhood of the soldier's home.
My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Midlothian and North Peebles (Colonel Colville) made a speech for which I am most grateful. His support of our proposals I particularly appreciate, because he has rendered very high service to the Home Guard, is working in close touch with its administration, and knows its difficulties and problems very well. He emphasised the need for more officers for training, as did many other Members. We recognise that; and, as he knows, the struggle to find permanent staff instructors has been a very serious one. We also recognise that officers are now being relegated to unemployment who have very special qualifications which


might be valuable to the Home Guard. We are going very carefully into the question of using them to help the Home Guard. We want to guard against imposing upon the Home Guard, however, any commander who is not suited to the particular locality or battalion. I do not think that the Home Guard would always welcome strangers to its own countryside who do not understand the particular district to which they are sent. But I think we could do a great deal to help by using highly-trained soldiers who are out of employment to lecture and advise.

Colonel Colville: My hon. Friend will understand that I was speaking of training rather than of command.

Sir E. Grigg: I am glad of that interruption from my right hon. and gallant Friend. That is the point. Such men can do more service in the way of training, supervision, and so on than in actual command.

Mr. E. Evans: Does the hon. Gentleman hope to reach this stage that I suggested, of having a P.S.I. for each company?

Sir E. Grigg: I cannot go so far as that. I only wish that there were more P.S.I's. But we are getting them as fast as we can. With regard to calling-up for the Army, my right hon. and gallant Friend asked that men who were absolutely indispensable for the Home Guard should not be automatically called up for the three Services. I am afraid it is impossible to give such a guarantee. It is clear that each case must be made before the district board, under the National Service Act. What can be said is that the importance of a man's position in the Home Guard is one of the factors that will be taken fully and sympathetically into account. It will be open to commanding officers to make their representations on that point before the boards. I hope that it will be possible to avoid depriving the Home Guard of a number of men who are indispensable to them. But I am sure that my right hon. and gallant Friend will realise that that can be done in only a limited number of cases. It cannot be said that, because a man is doing excellent part-time military service, he should be exempted from whole-time service. It must be shown first that he is more valuable as a part-

time soldier than he would be as a whole-time soldier.

Colonel Colville: It depends upon what you are going to do with the whole-time soldier, and whether his employment as a whole-time soldier will be a greater contribution to the national effort than his contribution as a part-time soldier in the Home Guard.

Mr. Jewson: Does it not also depend upon what a man is doing as a civilian?

Sir E. Grigg: These are points to be made before the district board. I should like to add that we greatly appreciate what my right hon. Friend has said about the directorate of the Home Guard. It has had a very difficult time, and the Army Council are very grateful to the three directors who have been in charge of the Home Guard and to all those who have worked under them in that directorate. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Wales (Mr. E. Evans) raised the point as to the 48 hours' training, and I hope that I have satisfied him that the utmost discretion and consideration will be used. He also mentioned the variety of weapons. Members who attack the War Office for not giving the Home Guard more weapons or a too great variety of weapons do not seem to realise that the War Office is not a supply or a producing Department. We ask for what we want and take what we can get. We are in fact in exactly the same position as the Home Guard. We have asked for what we need. We try to satisfy ourselves, and on the whole we do satisfy ourselves, that what can be done is being done. But it is not our responsibility. We must accept the fact that in the supply of munitions to be produced, a very wide discretion must be used, and that we cannot make more than a certain number in this country alone, however we strive, at one time. Personal equipment in some forms is still short for a proportion of the Home Guard. But many new weapons are available, and I think that everybody will agree that the Home Guard is now a well-armed Force who would be able to give a very good account of itself if the country were attacked.
I am glad that the hon. Lady the Member for West Fulham has returned, as I must say a word about her speech. She


argued eloquently and cogently for the inclusion of women in the Home Guard. I can give her very little hope. The opinion of the Home Guard itself is greatly divided on the point, and I would point out that when people say in the same breath, "Why is ammunition short for Home Guard training?" and "Why do you not train the women of the country to shoot?" they cannot train the women without still further reducing the amount available for the existing Home Guard.

Mr. Silverman: You said that it was a very good armed Force.

Sir E. Grigg: My hon. Friend should really not make verbal points on a matter of this kind. I expressly said that while the armament of rifles was not complete, the all-round equipment of the Home Guard would enable it to give a good account of itself everywhere.

Dr. Summerskill: I stressed the point that women did not want rifles. I knew there were not sufficient to go round, but I asked that they should be taught how to use a rifle.

Sir E. Grigg: Unfortunately, that means using ammunition, which creates the same difficulty.

Dr. Summerskill: I think the hon. Gentleman had misrepresented me a little. I rather fancy that he is a good shot, and, if so, he will know that one of the most important things about shooting is to learn how to handle a rifle and to sight a target. You do not need ammunition for that purpose.

Sir E. Grigg: I do not want to join in a long discussion as to whether one can get far with a rifle without using ammunition, but I would point out that we have already had complaints—quite justifiable—about the lack of instructors in the Home Guard. Those we have are fully extended at the present time. In all these things it is really lack of material and personnel that caused the limitations, and not any discrimination against women as such. Therefore, I hope the hon. Lady will accept that explanation.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) made an interesting speech, and I would like to thank him for the support which he gave us

and for the kind things he said about myself. He spoke in particular about turning the trained met. into a reserve and of organising recruits in separate units. Well, in the Home Guard that is really out of the question, because where new recruits are brought in compulsorily they will be for those units that are short of men. The only assurance I can give him is that the older men will not be made to go through their recruit training all over again with the younger recruits, but I cannot give the undertaking that old soldiers and new recruits will not be organised in the same platoons. That will have to be so. He also mentioned the question of the reorganisation of the Home Guard by districts rather than by battalions—a suggestion which was attacked by other hon. Members. I would only say that battalion organisation is certainly less well-fitted to some parts of the country than to others. That is equally true of the present position of zone and group commanders. I will only say that where reorganisation is likely to increase the efficiency of the Home Guard, simplify its administration and improve efficiency from the operational point of view, it will certainly be undertaken.
If I have overlooked some points—and I must have done so—I hope hon. Members will write to me or bring them up before the Home Guard Committee which has been established by the House of Commons. I am delighted that this Committee of Members of this House, serving in the Home Guard, has been formed. We regard their help as valuable to the War Office and to the Army Council, and I am sure my right hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary of State will attend when he can. I will always attend myself if he is unable to do so. There is only one other word I would say, and I want 1o say it from this Box to the Home Guard which will hear of these proposals in detail by broadcast to-night and in the newspapers of tomorrow morning. I think the whole Home Guard movement will recognise that this new call on the spirit of that force is in keeping with the facts of the situation. It is vital that that should be appreciated. What are the facts? Recent events have stirred our people very deeply, and rightly stirred them. Men and women throughout the country are asking themselves individually whether there is anything more that they can do


to further the war effort, and they are also showing a much greater impatience with those who are content to watch the war effort rather than to share in it. Both those tendencies have been becoming more and more marked for some time inside the Home Guard—the desire to do more, and impatience with the people who are not doing enough. These feelings, I am sure, spring from an absolutely just appreciation of the emergency in which we stand.
The Government, in bringing forward these measures, are not imposing them upon on unwilling Force, but are meeting the desires of that Force half way. I am sure that in this matter the Army Council and the vast majority of the Home Guard are of one mind. Therefore, we count on Home Guards throughout the country to respond like Home Guards to this new call—and I could not use a phrase which would express a stronger patriotism. They will, I am sure, realise that these new measures are a speaking proof of the high military value which is attached to them. We should not trouble about making up their numbers and raising their units to the highest possible efficiency if they were not an absolutely vital part of our system of defence. The danger in which the country stands is such that we must give the Home Guard every ounce of strength and quality that lies in our power. As a Force it has already made its mark on history. No soldiers in the world, I believe, are prouder of their uniform than the men of the Home Guard, and I am sure that when the response to this new call is known, their right, and their legitimate right, to be proud of their Home Guard uniform will be stronger even than it is at the present time.

Orders of the Day — MINISTRY OF INFORMATION (CANCELLED BROADCAST).

Sir Percy Harris: I am sure I express the general feeling of the House when I congratulate the Joint Under-Secretary of State for War on his very comprehensive survey of the magnificent work of the Home Guard, and the Government on having brought forward these very timely measures. Therefore, I am sorry to have to introduce a controversial note into this very harmonious Debate on the

Motion for the Adjournment. At Question Time, however, I asked a Question which I considered to be very important, and, following the usual formula, I said that owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I felt bound to raise the issue on the Motion for the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity. This is the earliest opportunity. I think it is important that the Ministers concerned, of whom there are two, should have a chance to clear up what seems to me, and I believe to a great many other hon. Members, to be a rather unpleasant incident.
The British Broadcasting Corporation is one of the most important organisations in the country. Millions of people in this country and in the Dominions listen in not only to the B.B.C.'s news bulletins, but also to their talks on various subjects. Once people get the idea that opinion is tampered with by His Majsety's Ministers because of personal issues, a great part of the influence of the broadcast will go. If that happened it would be a disaster. No doubt there are two sides to this issue, and I want to hear the Ministers' explanations. I will, briefly, give an outline of how the matter arose. A friend of mine, Mr. Gibb, wrote an article in the "Economist," dealing with Regulation I8B. The original article was unsigned, like all the articles in the "Economist." I read the article at the time, and I was immensely impressed with the fair way in which the problem was analysed. It was not a partisan article, it stated both sides of the issue, from the point of view of the critic and from the point of view of the Minister concerned. Apparently I was not the only person who was impressed with this article, because the B.B.C. telephoned Mr. Gibb and asked him to give a broadcast talk on much the same lines as the article.
I think that the B.B.C. were justified in asking him to give a talk. Here was an issue of very great importance which the public do not understand—18B sounds very mysterious to the public, if it does not sound mysterious to Members of this House. If the B.B.C. are to keep the public informed, I think that it was their duty to try and find an impartial and responsible person to give a detached view on the issue. Mr. Gibb, who has never broadcast before, accepted, and, on


5th December, feeling rather nervous over the ordeal which he had to go through, arrived at Broadcasting House, or whatever is the appropriate building. After keeping him waiting for half-an-hour— and he was to have broadcast at 9.30 p.m. —a message came through, telling him the B.B.C. were very sorry that they could not allow him to read the manuscript, which they had apparently approved.
We want to talk frankly about this question. I understand that he knew people at the Home Office, and, very rightly and properly, he got into touch with them and was accorded an interview; the usual courtesy which one expects from a Government Department was accorded to him. He was led to understand that the reason the broadcast was not allowed to take place was that the Home Secretary took exception to it. I am open to correction, because I have only heard one side, and possibly there may be some explanation. Naturally, I put down a Question to the person who I understood was the guilty party, but my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, not through a desire to evade responsibility, because that is not his makeup, handed the baby on to an innocent party—the Minister of Information. If my statement is correct, I think that it would have been better if the Home Secretary had dealt with the Question himself. I gather that the Minister of Information, who I understand cannot be here to-day, had no objection to the article. I gathered this from a conversation I have had with him. He took no exception either to the tone or to the character of the article, and, if it had been left to the Ministry, I understand that the broadcast would have been permitted.
I understand that the article was considered too controversial. I have it with me. It is largely historical, it analyses the law and explains its administration. The writer very fairly describes the Debate which took place in the House of Commons, and he puts the Government's point of view and the critics' point of view. A more detached and historical document I cannot visualise, except, perhaps, the Official Minutes of this House. It may be that the last sentence is a bit controversial, and I can understand exception being taken to it. But this sentence

could have been "blue-pencilled." It expresses sympathy for the men who have to bear the ordeal of prison and the stigma which is attached to it.
That, or any other sentence, could have been eliminated. [HON. MEMBERS: "Read it."] It would take a quarter of an hour to read the whole article. It is available to anyone who would like to see it, and its contents are, of course, already familiar to the Home Secretary. If it is going to be said that no broadcast is to be allowed on home affairs except by Ministers, if they are controversial, the utility of the B.B.C. as an educational organisation will largely disappear. I accept unreservedly the policy that anything that endangers National Defence or security should be censored. That is why the Government have established the right rule that articles should be submitted to the appropriate Department. If they raise the question of the number of guns or aeroplanes or the capacity of our National Defence, articles should be censored, but I believe the Prime Minister and the Government never intended that any Minister should intervene on matters which do not endanger our safety merely because a particular Minister was criticised. The Home Secretary is the last person to complain.
The very week-end after that broadcast a friend of his gave the weekly talk on "The Week in Westminster." I do not want to speak disparagingly of it, but it was fulsome praise of the right hon. Gentleman's oratory and the skilled way in which he put forward his arguments. I agree that it was a clever piece of work and that the speech was good, well argued and well reasoned. I have no objection to his having full publicity, but he is the last person to try and censor anyone who tries to give an impartial account of a discussion in the House. It strikes at the very foundation of our liberties. We are always giving lip service to liberty, freedom of speech and freedom of the Press, and I think we might in these days demand freedom in broadcasting. I am an old friend of the Home Secretary's. I have watched his career with great interest since the early days when he first came on the London County Council. I recognised his ability and capacity, but, if he wants to keep our respect, he must exercise the immense powers vested in him


with more discretion and more restraint. I know that power is most intoxicating. We have seen it at work in Germany. We do not want him turned into a miniature Goebbels. We have much too high an opinion of him for that. But if, when he sees a critical document, he says, "I do not like this; I am going to stop it," his great position in the House and in his own party will be undermined, and he will lose the confidence of the country. I appreciate the terrific responsibility of his office. I have supported him on occasion after occasion, though sometimes reluctantly, because I have realised that in war-time Ministers have a terrific responsibility, and we should criticise them with discretion. Before we rise for the Christmas Recess we ought to have a full explanation of what to most of us looks like the arbitrary exercise of the great powers vested in him.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Information (Mr. Thurtle): I would like to assure the right hon. Baronet that the Minister of Information accepts full responsibility for this matter. It was our decision which caused the broadcast to be dropped. There was no question of handing over the baby. We accept the paternity of the child.

Mr. Stokes: Who was the mother?

Mr. Thurtle: I would like to say on behalf of my right hon. Friend that he regrets very much that he is not able to be present and to deal with this matter himself. He wanted to do so, but, as the right hon. Baronet knows, he is unwell and cannot be here. Therefore, I have to act as a very inadequate substitute. The history of this matter is a very short one. The B.B.C. thought that the subject of Regulation I8B was of sufficient general public interest to warrant an impartial broadcast on it—I say "an impartial broadcast." With that in view, because Mr. Gibb was known to be interested in the matter and had written an interesting article on the subject, it was decided to approach him, and he agreed to do the broadcast. The script, I understand, was received at the B.B.C. several days before it was due to be delivered, but by some unfortunate mischance it was not brought to the attention of the Ministry of Information, as on a matter of public policy such as this it should have been, until a

few hours of the time it was due to be broadcast.

Mr. Buchanan: What was the mischance?

Mr. Thurtle: I do not know the reason, but it was something to do with the mechanism of the B.B.C. When the text was brought to our attention, as I said at Question time to-day, some doubt was felt by us as to whether it was an impartial statement of the case, and it was thought right to consult the Home Secretary on the point. He expressed the view that while there could be no objection to the B.B.C. putting before the public arguments on both sides of the question in dispute by a debate between opposing speakers, the proposed talk did not give an impartial, statement and was in a material point inaccurate. Confronted with that view of the Home Secretary's, and that view coinciding with the view of my right hon. Friend, the broadcast was dropped. I do not know whether the right hon. Baronet will dispute the point as to the inaccuracy of a material point, but if so, I would like to draw his attention to the point I have in mind. The broadcast says this:
The Government agree that before a man is imprisoned not only must the Minister believe but the Minister's belief must be reasonable.
Then it went on to say, implying a breach of faith:
Later the Government went a step further. It said the person to decide whether the Home Secretary had reason for his belief should be the Home Secretary.
The implication there is—and this is a material point—that it was a change of front or a breach of faith on the part of the Government. There is no change of front whatever. It has always been the position of the Government that the Home Secretary must be the final judge as to what was reasonable or not.

Mr. Ernest Evans: On a point of Order. The Minister is now quoting from a document. Is it not in accordance with tradition that that document should now be laid upon the Table?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Dennis Herbert): The Rule to which the hon. Member refers applies only to official documents, and so far as I understand this could not possibly be described as an official document.

Mr. Thurtle: The right hon. Baronet says that this broadcast was impartial. What is partial and what is not is obviously a matter of opinion, and in the view of my right hon. Friend, in the view of the Home Secretary, and in the view, I may say, of the highest officials of the B.B.C.—

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: Does that include the Governors?

Mr. Thurtle: —this broadcast was not impartial. It has always been a rule of the B.B.C.—-there is nothing new in this —that all national matters of acute controversy, and this is one, if they are to be dealt with at all, should be dealt with by stating both sides of the question, and in the view of my right hon. Friend both sides of the question were not stated in this broadcast.

Mr. Stokes: Nor were they on the peace aims, either.

Sir Irving Albery: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether this broadcast was to have taken place on a date subsequent to the broadcast of the "Week in Westminster,"or before it?

Mr. Thurtle: I regret that I am not in a position to tell my hon. Friend.

Sir I. Albery: Possibly the Home Secretary can inform me.

Mr. Thurtle: It was certainly subsequent to the Debate which took place in the House. I should like to clear away one false impression which possibly exists and to say that the B.B.C. is not opposed to broadcasting a discussion on this subject. It is quite ready to arrange a debate so that both sides of the question can be fairly argued, and I have no doubt at all that it would be happy to arrange that Mr. Gibb should take part in that debate.

Dr. Russell Thomas: A supervised debate?

Mr. Thurtle: I think I have said enough to show that the only reason why this broadcast was dropped was that it was felt not to be impartial upon a matter of acute public controversy. Had it been impartial there would have been no question whatever of having it dropped. I think that is all I can say.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: The hon. Gentleman said that the B.B.C. asked Mr. Gibb to give this broadcast. He then said it was a matter of acute public controversy. Does he mean to say that they subsequently made up their minds that they could have the matter debated by two people but that one man was incapable of making an impartial statement when they had asked him to do it?

Mr. Thurtle: Not at all. The B.B.C. asked Mr. Gibb to do this broadcast in the belief that he would be able to do an impartial broadcast. A study of the script showed that the broadcast was not impartial.

Hon. Members: Why?

Mr. Silverman: On a point of Order, and further to the point of Order raised just now by the hon. and learned Gentleman. This House is being asked to consider whether an interference with a broadcast was because of the Home Secretary's objection to it or because it was not an impartial statement of the issue with which it purported to deal. This House finds it very difficult to decide that question without the document; my hon. Friend who spoke from the Front Bench on behalf of the Ministry has referred repeatedly to the document, and has said that it is not impartial. Having done that, is he not bound, under the practice and Standing Orders of this House, to produce his document, so that we may decide whether what he says about it is right or wrong?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member has not quite correctly stated the question before the House. This is a Motion for the Adjournment, no such question for decision as the hon. Member suggests is before the House. Going into the matter further, I think that the Rule as to the production of a paper refers only to something in the nature of an official paper.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I have no desire in the world to embarrass the Government, but I venture to suggest to my hon. Friend who has just addressed the House that this is a matter of the very highest importance, in which the B.B.C. has a very high tradition to maintain. Broadcast discussion has become a most important matter in the life of the nation, and it is now vital that the prin-


ciples established should not be sacrificed in any way. I want to put two questions to my hon. Friend. He said that the B.B.C. were obliged to consult the Minister of Information. Why? On matters of foreign broadcasting, yes; policy arises at every moment. It has led to the utmost difficulties that there is in fact divided responsibility between the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Information and the B.B.C, and I have many times pointed out to my hon. Friend, and to others who have had to deal with the Ministry of Information, the disastrous results which have followed from that divided responsibility. But why in this connection? You cannot help the enemy by anything you may say about 18B. Why was the Ministry consulted? Why did not the B.B.C. follow the practice which of course it would have followed in peace-time, and make its own decision for itself?
The second question I want to ask is this: He said that the B.B.C. has a rule —it is a very right one—that on difficult matters of national controversy both sides should be stated. The speaker was chosen because it was believed that he had taken an impartial view and would state both sides of the question. The Ministry and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary then decided that he was not stating both sides of the question. Why did they not allow him to carry on with his broadcast and have another speaker to state the other side another day? Those are the two questions to which I would like his answer. I do not consider that this is a small matter, but that a great principle is involved.

Mr. A. Bevan: On a point of Order. Frequent references have been made to a document. The Deputy-Speaker has said that this is not an official document. But may I respectfully submit that had this been a document that was sent in to the B.B.C. and was not handed over as just stated to the Government, it would not be an official document? Therefore, your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, would have been perfectly correct, but once a document has been the subject of Government decision and consultation, I submit that it becomes an official document.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I cannot support the opinion of the hon. Member on that subject, that every document so used by

a Minister of the Crown or any Government Department is an official document.

Mr. Bevan: With all respect to you, Sir, I would suggest that you should have waited for me to complete my speech and my submission to you. Whenever a document is quoted from by a member of the Front Bench or by a Government spokesman in the House, by that very act, in so far as the quotation or the reference to the document is intended to influence Debate, it becomes, I submit, an official document, and in my experience it has been the invariable practice of the House to insist that Debate should not be influenced by quotation from a document not available to the House. In this case the document has been made the basis of a decision, is quoted from, is referred to by the Government, has been looked at by the Home Secretary and has been made the basis of an official decision. The House cannot form an opinion whether the Government are right or wrong unless it has the same access to the document as have the Government themselves, and I submit that the document ought to be produced.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I quite appreciate the argument presented by the hon. Member, but I see no reason for any change in my Ruling. I feel sure that there are methods of bringing the document before the House, but one point is that when it is referred to in a Motion of this kind, which is really a Motion for the Adjournment of the House, it is not an appropriate time, or indeed practicable, for the House to come to any formal decision on the document. Therefore, on grounds of convenience as well as of what I am inclined to think is a correct interpretation of the Rule, I think this is not at the present moment an official document, the production of which can be enforced in the Debate.

Mr. Ernest Evans: The hon. Member who supported the Ministry of Information is such a popular Member of the House that we are inclined to accept a statement coming from him more readily than such a statement coming from other people, but we cannot ignore the fact that the Home Secretary is sitting on the Front Bench. In view of the fact that he is here, it is important that we should ask one or two questions with a view to elucidating the


facts. It is all very well for the hon. Member to say that the B.B.C. takes responsibility for the suppression of this particular broadcast, but that is not good enough for the House of Commons or for the country. We know that a man—I do not know him and never heard of him before, but he is obviously a gentleman of some distinction—was asked by the B.B.C. to broadcast upon a topic of vital interest to the very things that we are fighting for at the present time. He accepted the invitation. He prepared a document. He presented it to the B.B.C. some days before the day on which he was to broadcast. By some very peculiar set of circumstances the B.B.C. did not see the document until a few hours before he was going to broadcast.
I want to ask this question to begin with: When did the Governors of the B.B.C. first see the script of Mr. Gibb's proposed broadcast—if they ever did see it? I should be very interested to find out whether they ever did see it and, if they did see it, when.
The second question is, How long was the interval between the time when somebody, either the Governors of the B.B.C. or my hon. Friend, or the Minister of Information, saw this script, and the time when it was referred to the Home Secretary? Who is the Home Secretary, anyhow, to decide? He is the very man who is concerned. He has already got much more power than many of us think he ought to have. If, in addition to the powers, the tremendous powers, practically uncontrolled powers, which he has— this is the only place where we can challenge him—he has also the right to tell his hon. Friend or the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Information or the Governors of the B.B.C, "You must not allow that to go, it is criticising me," well, where are we?
My right hon. Friend paid a great tribute to the Home Secretary. He knows him; I do not. Speaking without that intimate knowledge which my right hon. Friend has of the Home Secretary, I quite frankly say that I have not the confidence in him that my right hon. Friend has. I think he is acting in a way which is against the interests of the country, that he is undermining the confidence of this country in the way he is running the Home Office. It is about time somebody

said that. It is certainly about time we stopped him from interfering with the Ministry of Information. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I was angling for that. I was wondering whether he Would challenge that statement. I say that he interfered with the discretion of the Ministry of Information with regard to this particular question.

Mr. Thurtle: If the hon. and learned Member will forgive me, I think he is wrong there. What happened was that we asked the Home Secretary's advice.

Mr. Evans: Do not let us quarrel about whether I used the wrong expression. If I did use the wrong expression, I am sorry, and I withdraw it. As I see the position, it is, that a gentleman was asked by the B.B.C. to broadcast. He prepared his broadcast, he submitted it to the B.B.C. and, as far as I can see, for about two or three days they did not discover anything objectionable in it. Would the hon. Gentleman like to contradict me on that?

Mr. Thurtle: It was not submitted to us for two or three days.

Mr. Evans: The script was delivered to the office of the Governors of the B.B.C, and they did not happen to see it for two or three days.

Mr. Thurtle: The hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. The B.B.C. is one place; the Ministry of Information is another, and the right hon. Gentleman did not see the script until about four hours before it was to be broadcast.

Mr. Evans: Do not let us quarrel about that. The script was delivered, and the B.B.C, or the Ministry of Information, or both, did not object to that script until some time after receiving it. Somebody thought, "There is one paragraph in this thing that we do not like, and, before we allow it to be delivered, we are going to consult the Home Secretary." Then the Home Secretary said, "I do not like the particular sentence, or sentences"; and it was then turned down. The great question of principle is, Why should the Home Secretary have the right to refuse to allow to be published to the people of this country a matter of vital principle in which the country takes a great interest? I do not think it is right that the Government should have such control over the


B.B.C. or the Ministry of Information, whatever you like to call it, so that they can keep away from the people of this country a statement by a fair-minded man on a question of great principle, which affects our people.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: I think this incident must be considered in relation to the events which followed the Debate on Regulation 18B in this House a little while ago. I think that anyone who read the papers the following day, with one or two exceptions, or who heard the news broadcast by the B.B.C. that night, would agree that the view presented to the public by the B.B.C. and the Press of what took place in the Debate was a complete travesty of what actually occurred in the House of Commons. The public were not allowed to know the argument put forward by Members who took part in the Debate; and, as my hon. Friend opposite said, the space given in the Press erred on the side of giving the Home Secretary and those who supported him tremendous publicity, and of denying publicity to those who criticised the working of 18B. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Information made great play with the word "impartial." He said that it was essential that the public should have the views expressed about 18B put to it impartially. The B.B.C. certainly was partial. It did not pretend to give any of the arguments put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Sir I. Albery) and myself and others in this House. Then occurred the "Week in Westminster" broadcast, by a friend of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. Anybody who heard, or read the script of, that broadcast would be bound to say that it was about as partial a statement as could be put over the air. It denied to the public the right to hear one side of the case which was put, because it did not suit the Home Secretary to have that side of the case put.

Earl Winterton: There is a rumour going about that the friend of the Home Secretary was a Member of this House, who was asked to broadcast as a Member of this House.

Sir A. Southby: The Noble Lord is quite correct. "The Week in Westminster" broadcast was given by a Member of this House. I am only saying that his broad-

cast was about the most partial one that could be put over the ether on the subject of 18B. It, quite rightly, lauded the great qualities of the Home Secretary. We would all pay tribute to his great qualities. But the broadcast did not allow the people to know the truth about the arguments levelled against 18B. NOW comes a completely impartial gentleman who has submitted a script at the request of the B.B.C, and, because that script contains something which the Home Secretary did not like, not because it was something that would injure the country, but because it did not suit the Home Secretary to allow anybody to bring any argument against 18B to the notice of his fellow-countrymen, that script was turned down. Why does the Home Secretary exercise censorship over the B.B.C? We have not been told whether the Governors of the B.B.C. read the script and exercised their judgment about it. We have been told that they went to the Home Secretary for advice. Did they ever intend not to take that advice? If the Governors of the B.B.C. ever had the script submitted to them, did they approve of it, or disapprove of it? The fact remains the script contained an argument on Regulation 18B which did not commend itself to the right hon. Gentleman and therefore he used his position as Home Secretary to prevent it from being given over the air.

Mr. A. Bevan: It seems to me that the attack is, to some extent, being directed at the wrong quarter. I have listened to the Debate very carefully and it does not seem to me that the Home Secretary is in the dock. My hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker) seemed to put the position in the right perspective. If I were the Minister and it was intended to broadcast something about me, and the authority responsible for making the broadcast said to me: "Do you like this?" and there was something in it which attacked me, I would, of course, say, "I do not like it." If it were something that was not praising me, I would disapprove of it. It is natural, if a broadcast is to be made on a very delicate subject like Regulation 18B and the Home Secretary is asked, "What do you think about this?" for him to say, "I think it ought not to be made."
I do not understand that the Home Secretary has been exercising a censorship over the B.B.C; he has no power to


do so. The Home Secretary has no power to say that a thing should not be broadcast by the B.B.C. I understand all that happened was that a document was sent to the B.B.C, and from the B.B.C. to the Ministry of Information, who said: "We think we ought to ask the Home Secretary about this," and the Home Secretary, being an ordinary common or garden individual, said "I do not like it." It seems to me unreasonable to attack the Home Secretary because he said to the Ministry of Information, "If I were the Ministry of Information I would not broadcast this document." Therefore, I believe that we are aiming at the wrong target. I suspect that the Home Secretary would use all his persuasion to try to prevent a broadcast anti-pathetic to himself. Knowing the Home Secretary as I do, I think he would exercise all his ability and charm to prevent that from being done. Obviously, in such circumstances he is not being asked as a Minister. He has not the power. You cannot find in any Statute that the Home Secretary has power to prevent a broadcast. He has no powers except those conferred upon him by this House. He was asked for his advice. He ought never to have been asked.
The evil part of this business is not any statement by the Home Secretary but the fact that the Government have degenerated so far as to become a little caucus communicating between themselves against the public interest. That is the evil. An atmosphere has grown up between Ministers, and you have here a little close conspiracy of Ministers of the Crown without any sense of public interest who derogate from democratic institutions for the sake of their own private reputations. It is not the Home Secretary. We ourselves are as much responsible for this as anybody. We have allowed Ministers for the last two years to have an exaggerated sense of their own importance. We have allowed them to get away with things they ought never to have been allowed to get away with. Plutarch has said:
When a man's powers are equal to his passions, he becomes a tyrant.
The right hon. Gentleman has become irresponsible, because he has not been sufficiently kicked in this House. If he had been restrained more, he would have been a better man. No matter what a

man's abilities and capacities are, he ought not to be allowed to exercise unrestrained power. Therefore, I say that the House has been aiming at the wrong target. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Information what business the Ministry had to ask the Home Secretary.

Mr. Thurtle: Our view of this proposed broadcast, as I have said before, was that we thought it was a partial judgment of a matter which was somewhat technical, and, therefore, we thought we had the right to consult, and obtain the advice of someone who might be considered an expert on this issue. We consulted the Home Secretary. We were under no obligation to accept his advice.

Mr. Bevan: I accept the hon. Gentleman's statement. Of course there was no obligation to accept the advice, but there is nothing technical about this matter at all. This is a principle of public policy which has been argued in the newspapers of this country and in this House on many occasions. The hon. Gentleman is using language that he knows he ought not to use. What happened was that you had a sort of bakehouse gossip about it, and it was said, "We do not think we ought to allow this to be broadcast, because it might hurt the feelings of another Minister. We will ask if it should be done." This sort of thing illuminates the atmosphere that exists in Government Departments. We know that this sort of thing has happened on more than one occasion. We know that the broadcast "The Week in Westminster" is never done by anybody except those who favour the Government. You are always impartial if you praise the Government, and partial if you attack the Government.

Dr. Russell Thomas: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the Ministry of Information would have taken the same trouble if a private individual had been concerned?

Mr. Bevan: Of course not. This is the camaraderie of a number of Ministers, who are using powers conferred upon them by the House of Commons to protect each other's reputations. That is the evil of this situation. The hon. Gentleman says this document was sent to the Home Secretary and he says that the Minister was responsible for saying whether or


not they had the right decision, having received the Home Secretary's advice. But we are in no position to judge whether they were right or wrong.

Mr. Mander: It is very difficult for the House to debate this subject without knowing the terms of the document. It would clear the atmosphere if it were read out.

Mr. Bevan: That is why I raised this matter. The hon. Gentleman opposite stated that he accepted the advice of the Home Secretary that this was an improper statement to broadcast. We are in no position to judge whether that was so or otherwise. [Interruption.] I have come to the Home Secretary's defence. So far, I have put up the only defence he has. What I do know is that he has shown no enthusiasm to speak in his own defence—

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Does the hon. Gentleman imply that I am afraid to answer him? If so, there is no justification for a statement of that kind.

Mr. Bevan: The right hon. Gentleman will no doubt have his opportunity. All I can say is that whenever I am in an argument with him in the House, he always makes me feel like a bully. The right hon. Gentleman will have his opportunity in a few moments. I say that, not having heard the document read, we now have to accept the position that the Ministry of Information decided not to allow the broadcast because a paragraph in the document was improper. But I understand that it is quite usual for the B.B.C., if exception is taken to the use of certain words, to ask the broadcaster to amend his script. Was that done?

Mr. Thurtle: There was the time factor involved. I have already said the document was received four hours before it was due to be broadcast. There was no time to effect any emendations or anything else. This statement of fact was one of the factors. It was not the only factor. The document was tendentiously partial as well.

Mr. Bevan: The hon. Gentleman adds to this case as he goes on.

Mr. Thurtle: That was my original case.

Mr. Bevan: The hon. Gentleman now says that it was tendentiously partial as well. Obviously the House can no longer discuss this matter intelligently without having the whole document. The hon. Gentleman says there was no time. I have a good many very close personal friends who broadcast, and I know that broadcasts can be altered in the last five minutes. The fact is that the hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense, and knows that he is talking nonsense. He is stonewalling, and is a very bad stone-waller. His wickets are spread on the ground. The gentleman referred to was at the B.B.C. for a quarter of an hour. The consultation with the Home Secretary had taken place long before that. There was ample time for any emendations to be made. But we know now that no emendation could be made because objection was taken to the whole document. It was tendentious; in other words, it did not butter up the Government. No document can ever be produced for the B.B.C. which does not butter up the Government. The fact of the matter is that this one incident discloses a most disgraceful state of affairs. We have rarely an opportunity of considering instances of this sort. This instance discloses an atmosphere which is obscene. When a huge broadcasting instrument like the B.B.C. can be made the subject of sordid conspiracies of this sort, it is a very bad state of affairs. I suggest that we ought not to come to final conclusions on this matter, except such conclusions as are disclosed from the evidence we have, until we see the full text of the document. I hope that in the interests of the good name of this country and the B.B.C, we shall not have a repetition of this misbehaviour.

Lieutenant Butcher: I feel that the right hon. Baronet has placed us under a deep sense of gratitude for raising this important matter. As I listen to this Debate, I find that I am unable to agree with the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) that the Debate has centered on the wrong Minister. After all, this Question was originally put to the Home Secretary, and it was passed on by him to the Ministry of Information. I see no reason why that should have been done. It seems to me that in the absence of the document it is very difficult to come to a conclusion. When a document is presented to the


B.B.C., surely the B.B.C. have two tasks. First, they have to see that it is the kind of document for which they asked, or, in other words, an impartial resumé of the question of Regulation 18B, and, second, whether it infringes questions of national security. Upon both of these points, they should have been able to reach a decision of their own without any consultation with the Ministry of Information. Obviously, they must exercise their judgment on these two points on many hundreds of documents during the course of their normal work. Instead of that, the matter is referred to the Ministry of Information. Surely the Ministry is able of itself to come to some conclusion. But the Ministry referred the matter to the Home Secretary. I am bound to say that if anyone referred to me a matter in which I was not concerned, I would say, "This is your job. You cannot expect me to express any opinion." We find that the Home Secretary made representations to his right hon. Friend the Minister of Information, and they forbade the B.B.C. to publish these facts.
This Debate has contained a good many tributes to the Home Secretary, and I am not going to join in those tributes. I think that he is a thoroughly unsatisfactory Minister. On a previous occasion, when Regulation 18B was under discussion, it was the Prime Minister who came down, discussed and answered the case raised in this House. I also bear in mind that on an occasion when my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby) and my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Sir I. Albery) raised this matter, the Home Secretary challenged a Division, and those of us who support the Government were unable to divide the House. I hope that before this Debate ends we shall have an explanation from the right hon. Gentleman. I am grateful to the right hon. Baronet for raising this matter. I apologise for detaining the House, but I am bound to say that the Minister of Home Security is a thoroughly dangerous Minister to the country at the present time.

Mr. Mander: A good many comments have been made in the course of this Debate on the fact that it is difficult for the House to express an opinion because they have not seen the

document concerned. I hold the document in my hand, and, if the House wish it, I am prepared to read it. I warn the House that there are five pages, and I do not wish them to complain if they find it somewhat lengthy. I think that it would be fairer to the Home Secretary and all concerned if the actual words were read out. As I say, if the House wishes it, I am ready to read the document.

Sir Frank Sanderson: Would the House be in a position to judge a document of five closely typewritten pages, merely because it is read at this hour?

Mr. Mander: This is the document:

REGULATION 18B.

"Last Wednesday the House of Commons debated what is known as Regulation I8B. That Regulation is part of the arrangements made for the defence of our common safety against hostile action in this country, and it gives power to the Home Secretary to imprison without trial any persons who may in his view have certain dangerous tendencies. It has aroused great public interest, and in the House of Commons there was a sharp division of opinion which cut across the ordinary lines of party politics. Over much of the field covered by the Debate there is general agreement. There's a good deal of common ground. It is common ground that the safety of the Realm is paramount. It is common ground that the ordinary process of law will not protect us against this particular danger. In peace-time the law comes in after a wrong has been done and punishes the wrong-doer or sets the wrong right.

In times of war we can't afford to wait. We must anticipate and prevent, and for that purpose the ordinary law just will not work. If a crisis came on us suddenly and a bunch of fifth columnists seized a wireless station or invaded an aerodrome, you could not go to the county court and get an order for possession or send a squad of police to arrest the men and bring them to the Old Bailey. We must anticipate, and that means that we must act on suspicion. On the other hand, it is common ground that imprisonment on suspicion is a hateful business and that, so long as the safety of the realm is protected, the right to imprisonment should be hedged about with all possible safeguards. That, I think, is as far as general agreement goes, and at this point the two lines of thought diverge. But before we come to them let us go back to the birth of 18B, and see something of its life story. It came before the House first in October, 1939, and it said then that if the Home Secretary were satisfied that a man should be detained, then he could be detained. The House did not like it and pointed out that, if a Minister could act like this just because he was satisfied, then he had complete power over the liberty of every British subject. The Government promised, in deference to this criticism, to submit the regula-


tion to a small committee and have it redrafted. It was re-drafted and it appeared in a different form. It is now said that, if the Home Secretary had reasonable cause to believe a man to be dangerous; he might detain him. The Government agreed that before a man is imprisoned, not only must the Minister believe but the Minister's belief must be reasonable. And later on the Government went a step further. It said that the person to decide whether the Home Secretary had reasonable cause for his belief should be the Home Secretary, so if the mind of the Home Secretary can be convinced by the arguments of the Home Secretary that the beliefs entertained by the Home Secretary is reasonable, then it is reasonable. But not otherwise. To us laymen that sounds perhaps rather like a dog subsisting on its own tail, but to lawyers it presents no difficulty, and out of II judges who have given judgment on the Clause, 10 uphold the Government's interpretation and only one, Lord Atkins in the Lords, has dissented. Now let us come back to Wednesday's Debate. The essence of the critic's case is that the Regulation put into one man's hands a power which no one man ought to exercise. That, say the critics, is not personal to Mr. Morrison. Whoever holds his office, if Solomon in all his wisdom held the office, it would still be wrong to let him sign away the liberty of his fellow subjects behind a barricade of secrecy and on the strength of his own opinion. The Government's reply is that the man can appeal. As soon as he is detained he is told of an advisory committee to which he can go and put a case for his release. The Committee has been chosen with great care and its Chairman is Mr. Justice Birkett. It gives every applicant a most patient hearing and, if it feels that the man is not doing himself justice, it often says to him, "Are you sure there is nothing else you would like to tell us?" or, 'Would you like us to adjourn so that you can think about it, and in case you think of something else come back? ' It is quite true that the Committee sits in secret and that its findings are not published. It is true that the public never knows whether Mr. X satisfied the Committee and got a recommendation or not. But this secrecy is essential. We cannot disclose our sources of information or bring our witnesses into the open. If we did, the sources might dry up and the witnesses refuse to testify. Without secrecy we cannot protect the safety of the country and we can do no more than appoint a competent committee and give it the right to advise as it thinks proper.

The answer the critics make to the Government is this. We do not know much about the working of the Committee, but we do know that the man comes before it without being told what the detailed charges against him are. He does not know who has given evidence against him. He does not see the witnesses. He cannot cross-examine. He is not allowed a lawyer to appear for him. He has only his own advocacy to give his own reply to an unknown case supported by hidden witnesses. And if, weighed down with these handicaps, he still manages to persuade the Committee, what happens then? The Committee, no matter how strongly it feels, has no power. It has only the right to advise.

It may say to the Home Secretary, 'We do not think this man is dangerous. We think you could safely release him.' But the Home Secretary need not take the slightest notice of the advice. If he believes the man is dangerous, that is his belief and, naturally, he thinks it reasonable, and he would not be breaking the law if he pitched the Committee's recommendation straight into the waste paper basket. Actually we do know that in over 100 cases the Home Secretary has gone contrary to the Committee's advice and whenever he prefers his own opinion he is bound by the Regulation to follow it in preference to theirs. He does not, in fact, claim ever to have accepted the Committee's view in preference to his own. What we want is an independent tribunal which will have something more than the right to advise. We want a body with power to detain and release—a body which (unlike the Home Secretary) will be free from police influence, free of the Security Department, and free of the Civil Service.

Now for the Government's come-back to that. If you mean (they say) that the Advisory Committee is valueless because it is only advisory you're much mistaken. In 90 per cent. of the cases the Home Secretary has followed the advice of the Committee and when he differs it is on policy, not on fact. And this tribunal of yours, by which you set such store, how is it going to function? A tribunal is a judicial body which needs to be satisfied of a man's guilt. The whole tradition of our courts is that a man is innocent till he is proved guilty. But in dealing with these 18B men we are not concerned with guilt or innocence. We are concerned only with suspicion. All the ordinary rules of the court go by the board and if there is reasonable cause to believe that he is likely to stab the country in the back, we as the Executive insist on detaining him. The detention is ah executive act, not a judicial one, and even in the man's own interest it is much better that the responsibility should rest on the Home Secretary who can be called to account. If he abuses his powers, Members of Parliament can challenge him on the floor of the House. But they couldn't challenge your independent tribunal, and you are much more likely to get justice done if you leave the power where it is—in the hands of a responsible Minister.

To that argument the critics reply that the Government is knocking down one Aunt Sally they never put up. We never asked (they say) for a tribunal which will work on the ordinary rules of evidence and when the tribunal is formed you can tell it that these rules don't apply. Make it clear that its job is not to find out whether a crime has been committed, but whether there is reasonable ground for suspicion. Let it sit in secret, if you like, and let it have only such evidence as can safely be produced. But let the prisoner have his case put by Counsel and then if Counsel can't persuade the tribunal that there is reasonable cause for his release, the tribunal can send him back to Brixton Gaol. And as regards the argument about M.P.s challenging the Home Secretary our reply in un-parliamentary language is thank you for nothing. You keep everything secret—you don't tell us what the man has done, what the case against him


is, who the witnesses against him are, what they said or what the Advisory Committee recommended. We don't know whether you accepted its recommendation or turned it down. All that is kept from us and then you ask us to challenge you in the House and prove that your belief is unreasonable. Here I am, you say. Hit me. Hit me when and how you like. But before the hitting starts I claim the right to fix a bandage tightly round my opponent's eyes.

Well that is a rough but I hope a reasonably fair summary of the argument on the two sides. And now, there is one word of my own I would like to add. Very often the worst part of a man's punishment begins when he leaves prison, and with the stigma of prison on him faces the world and meets his old acquaintances. That is a terrible ordeal. Among the ' men detained on suspicion under 18B there are doubtless many who are traitors at heart, but it is probable that there are others who may be wrongheaded and perverse, but have not an ounce of real treachery in them. But all of them—traitors and non-traitors alike— must sooner or later face the ordeal of the prison stigma. And for the sake of those who are not guilty, for the sake of their wives and children, I would ask you not to forget that although they are in prison they are not technically being punished. Remember that they have never been charged, never been tried and never been convicted."

Mr. Woodburn: I am inclined to agree with the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) that it was a great mistake to introduce the Home Secretary into this Debate. Having heard this document, I say that if I had been in charge of the B.B.C. or the Ministry of Information, I should have felt that it was quite unnecessary to consult the Home Secretary or anyone else about whether it was an impartial or a partial statement of the case. There is a sneer in every line of the document. Nobody could listen to it without feeling there was a sneer at the Government in every line.

Earl Winterton: Is the hon. Member speaking on behalf of the Government as a Parliamentary Private Secretary?

Mr. Woodburn: If the right hon. Gentleman had studied the document issued by the Prime Minister, he would have learned that Parliamentary Private Secretaries are left with the full liberties of Members of the House and can exercise those liberties when they are not dealing with their own particular office. I am speaking as a Member of this House. It is through no aspiring of mine that I am a Parliamentary Private Secretary.

There were other reasons, but I am speaking as a Member of this House, and I have a right to do so, in spite of the Noble Lord's wishes in the matter. That document is an indictment and not an impartial summary of any Debate. I think it right that the case should be put for both sides; I am not in the slightest disagreement with the case being put against Regulation 18B. I am not discussing the merits of 18B. There may be a great many arguments against the Home Secretary in regard to I8B, but it would have been extremely undesirable if the B.B.C had been used to "put across" a document couched in the language in which that document is couched. Therefore, I think the criticism, if there is any criticism, is against the Ministry of Information and the B.B.C. for not making their own decisions on the evidence in front of them and for consulting the Home Secretary or involving anybody else at all. The Minister representing the B.B.C. would then have come before this House and been responsible for its judgment. This House has a right to say whether in its opinion the Minister's judgment is correct or incorrect. We may differ. It is a matter of opinion. I have my opinion about the document, other Members have theirs, and the Ministry may have theirs.

Dr. Russell Thomas: Is it your opinion or the Government's?

Mr. Woodburn: The Minister is entitled to his opinion, this House is entitled to its opinion, and even if I were speaking for the Government, I would still be entitled to state my opinion. No Member of this House is debarred from doing that, and the hon. Member for Southampton (Dr. Thomas), when he has been here a little longer, will, I think, learn that.

Dr. Thomas: I have not learned to be a "Yes-man" yet.

Mr. Woodburn: A Member is entitled to courtesy from other Members. I have always shown courtesy to other Members, and I expect it from them, and these gibes at a Member who happens to serve in an inconspicuous and very modest way in the war effort—so far as I am permitted to do so—are extremely uncalled for and extremely undesirable. It departs from the issues before us, which are


matters of fact. It is not a question of what I am or of what are my opinions. On the document as read, I say definitely that the B.B.C. ought to have made up its mind that it was unsuitable matter for broadcasting. On the face of the evidence contained in the document, it was an unsavoury and insinuating description of a Debate. I guarantee that any Member of this House could, if he cared, by using certain inflections of language in reading that document as a broadcast, make out a case, not for the Home Secretary, but for setting free people who are not innocent. As a matter of fact, in its later terms the document insinuates that with the exception of a few people all those who were interned in the Isle of Man were innocent.

Earl Winterton: Quote the words.

Mr. Woodburn: I am prepared to quote the words. It definitely creates the impression that the Home Secretary has imprisoned innocent people, although there might be an odd one or two who would be fifth columnists. I therefore say the criticism is against the B.B.C. I think the Ministry of Information should not have officially consulted the Home Office, and if it did consult the Home Office or any other Department, it should not have brought that before the House as any reason for prohibiting the broadcast. The Ministry should have come before the House and said frankly, "We made our decision that this was an unsuitable broadcast, and we are prepared to stand by that and defend it." It is extremely reprehensible that this Debate should have been spread over several offices, and that the Ministry of Information should not have stood by its decision without involving other Departments.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The House is indebted to the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) for having read the script of the proposed broadcast, which script was submitted to the British Broadcasting Corporation by the gentleman who was to have delivered it. I think the hon. Member read it with very great care and in a tone of voice which, I thought, put it in an impartial way.

Mr. Mander: I tried to do so.

Mr. Morrison: Yes, and I think my hon. Friend succeeded. I hope I shall have

the pleasure of hearing that pleasant voice speaking one day from the B.B.C. The present discussion has arisen, as the right hon. Baronet for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) has said, from the Question which was put in the House to-day. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Information has put the case for the Ministry clearly and fairly. After listening to what he said, and from what I know, I should like to tell the House the series of events, as I understand it. It is well that it should be shortly recapitulated.
The British Broadcasting Corporation, or someone there, thought that it would be a good thing if an impartial statement in regard to the I8B controversy were broadcast. Now one of the most difficult things in the world is for anybody who is keenly interested in any subject, as this gentleman obviously is, to be impartial. I freely admit that it would be equally difficult for me, being naturally interested keenly in that subject, to be impartial. Some people can do it better than others. I have no doubt that the gentleman concerned made every effort to be impartial, but it must be remembered that the whole basis of the invitation of the B.B.C. so I understand, was that the broadcast should be an impartial statement of the case. The House has heard the recital of the script, which now appears to have been written by the same gentleman who signed an article "By a correspondent" in the "Economist." I read that article. I have no reason to quarrel with the "Economist" because, on that matter, the "Economist" editorial did, generally, support my view regarding I8B. They published a signed article by the correspondent, and it has been argued that the article was also impartial. I read the article and I am bound to say that I did not think it was impartial. In a material particular, although not in all particulars, it was inaccurate.
As one who is as entitled to his opinion as any other of the hon. Members who are now in the House, I suggest that it would be wise for us to read the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow. Whatever may be said as to the merits of the proposed broadcast, if it is appropriate that I should say anything, it would have been essentially a partial broadcast. In at least one particular it is grossly inaccurate as to the history of the matter. I am


entitled to that opinion, and indeed the fact that it was partial came out in the course of the recital by our hon. Friend, because the partiality of some of the remarks was enjoyed very much by hon. Members who have held certain views for a long time. [Interruption.] I hope my hon. Friend is not going to be intolerant. I hope he will not object to my stating my point of view. The fact that there was enjoyment, and even applause, at some of the observations was an indication that they were appealing to a certain point of view which is strongly held by some hon. Members at the moment in this assembly.

Earl Winterton: May I ask a question about that? I did not wish to take part in this controversy, but the right hon. Gentleman has just made so startling a statement—so illogical and inconsistent a statement—that I can hardly believe he made it. This document was read out, and some hon. Gentlemen who take a strong view cheered some of the comments which were made. Does the fact that they cheered the presentation of their own case, show that the document, in itself, was partial? What does he mean?

Mr. Morrison: My point is that a document is read out which it has been argued by the opener of the Debate, is an impartial statement of the case. I said in my observations that in my judgment it is not impartial, and I felt that there was evidence contributory to that view in the way in which parts of that document were cheered. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is my view.

Mr. Silverman: Do you weigh evidence like that?

Mr. Morrison: I should not go to my hon. Friend for an impartial weighing of evidence. Everybody is entitled to an opinion, and the document can be read in cold print to-morrow morning in the OFFICIAL REPORT. My view is that that statement, whatever the intentions were— and I do not question the intentions— was essentially a partial argument, even allowing for the fact that the author did seek, in certain paragraphs, to put the view of the Government. I am bound to say that I do not think he was particularly successful in stating the views of the Government, but he did state very

fully the views of the critics of the Government and finished with criticism by himself. That is the first point with which I am concerned. He was invited to make the broadcast on the basis of impartiality. He then went to the British Broadcasting Corporation, for which, of course, I am in no way responsible. The Minister of Information is answerable in this House for the B.B.C., and I am bound to say that he has a difficult life sometimes because of the varying points of view which some hon. Members take about the good or bad deeds of his Department.
To-day it is argued by some hon. Members that the Minister of Information ought not to interfere with the B.B.C. But only a few weeks ago the unhappy B.B.C., and the not very unhappy Minister of Information—although he would be unhappy if he let these things get on his nerves—were being very strongly criticised because Mr. Christopher Stone was permitted by the B.B.C. to send birthday greetings to the King of Italy. There have also been other questions in this House as to why the B.B.C. did so and so, and why did the Minister permit it. To-day we have the opposite argument—and it is curious how these opposite arguments usually come from the same familiar quarters on both sides of the House—that the B.B.C. ought not to be interfered with. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who said that?"] That is, in principle, the argument that has been made.

Mr. Bevan: Who said that?

Mr. Morrison: If it is held, as it has been held in time of war, and in time of peace when the Postmaster-General was answerable for the B.B.C, that somebody has to be answerable to this House for the deeds, right or wrong, of the B.B.C, then by that very fact there must be a right of Ministerial intervention. The next question is, who is the Minister who should intervene? That Minister is the Minister of Information, and, broadly, the B.B.C. is responsible to him. He, speaking broadly but not meticulously, is responsible for the administration of the B.B.C. to this House. At any rate he is the channel through which criticisms and complaints can be made and answers given. The manuscript went to the B. B.C. The Corporation on their own volition had invited the broadcast. According to my hon. Friend, there was


delay in the B.B.C. for which, I have no doubt, he is sorry. I know I am, too, because otherwise there would have been more time for consideration of this matter. At a certain time, some hours before the broadcast was to be made, the appropriate B.B.C. official queried it, and sent it to the Minister of Information, evidently on the basis that he himself having read it, had some doubt about it [Interruption.] Clearly, if he had no doubt about it, he had no occasion to submit it to the Ministry.

Mr. Silverman: I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that there was some mischance which resulted in the document not being sent to the Minister of Information for three or four days. From that, I gather that the normal practice of the B.B.C. where a matter of public policy is under discussion, is to send it to the Ministry of Information, not because there is any question or doubt, but because it is the normal course? The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Information indicated that that ought to have been done three or four days before, and that, by accident, it was not done.

Mr. Morrison: We are both right. I think the hon. Member has put it quite accurately, that where a question of public policy arises, it is the usual routine that the Ministry of Information is consulted. It is equally true that it is always the case if public policy is involved and there are elements of doubt, that there is discussion as to whether the broadcast is quite as it ought to be. It is the case that there was delay in sending it to the Ministry of Information and it did not get there until some hours before it was due to be broadcast.

Mr. Silverman: The Minister said he presumed from the fact that the B.B.C. submitted it to the Ministry of Information, that the B.B.C. reader himself entertained doubts about this specific broadcast. That is the presumption which he told us he himself had drawn.

Mr. Morrison: I do not see that there is a great deal in the point in any case, because the reason it goes to the Ministry is that there are elements in such broadcasts of disputable public policy, on which Ministerial advice or guidance or, if necessary, direction should be given. The Ministry of Information, in their discretion,

asked for the opinion—for the views—of the Home Secretary. I think they were entitled to do so as mine was the proper Department. Let me put it to the right' hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green that these things have happened in peace time. Evidently the view was taken at the Ministry of Information that this was not impartial, that it was a partial document; they had great doubts about it and they came to us for advice. This kind of argument has arisen before the war as well as during the war. Someone has broadcast a political speech, and at once there has been great criticism from political opponents of that kind of speech, that either it should not have been made at all or that it should not have been made without an opportunity for reply. Suppose there was to be a broadcast on the merits of the Liberal party and of its policy. Suppose a man said that he would speak on that subject and that he would be non-controversial. It would be quite normal, I suggest, for either the B.B.C. or the Ministry of Information to say to my right hon. Friend, "This is something about which there is a lot of bother; would you look at it, and see whether it is impartial?" Clearly, if it was controversial, my right hon. Friend would demand the right to reply.
I suggest that on such a highly controversial matter—and there are few subjects which have been more controversial for some time than this particular Regulation—there are two things which could have been done. One was to find an absolutely impartial statement of the issues. If that were done, I should not have had anything to say by way of comment; and I do not suppose that anyone else would. But if you did not succeed in doing that, the obvious thing would be to give the other side the right to reply. The Ministry of Information asked what was our view. We did not give a decision. The hon. and learned Member for the University of Wales (Mr. E. Evans) has charged me with interfering with the B.B.C. and with the Ministry of Information. He was quite wrong, and he should have known it, because my hon. Friend made it perfectly clear, both at Question time and now, that the decision was with the Ministry of Information, and not with the Home Office. But, our opinion being sought, we gave it. I tried to be as fair and impartial as I could. Perhaps I did not succeed.


I am not so confident of my impartiality on a highly controversial issue as some other hon. Members are. My hon. Friend said that I did not like the broadcast and, therefore, I expressed a view against it. I did nothing of the kind. I said that, in my view, it was a partial statement, and that, therefore, I thought that the fair thing to do was either, if possible, to have it made impartial or to have another broadcast commenting on this one, to balance the thing up. That was a view that I was perfectly entitled to express.

Mr. Bevan: Were you asked to do so?

Mr. Morrison: I think I was. I expressed that view without heat, without anger; and it was the job of the Ministry of Information to decide. They could have disagreed, because all the power is with the Minister of Information. He could have said, "I reject the view of the Home Secretary, and I think the broadcast should proceed"; and it would then have proceeded.

Mr. Stokes: He might have been proceeded against under 18B.

Mr. Morrison: My hon. Friend should be perfectly serious. He knows that nothing of the kind would happen.

Mr. Bevan: Does my right hon. Friend think that the Minister of Information should have asked him about it at all?

Mr. Morrison: Personally, I do.

Mr. Bevan: My right hon. Friend is now getting another Minister out of a difficulty.

Mr. Morrison: My hon. Friend now says that it is a matter of camaraderie.

Mr. Bevan: Why should you be asked?

Mr. Morrison: I think I am entitled to be asked, because mine is the State Department concerned with this Regulation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I do not see anything remarkable in that point of view. In any case, I was asked for my opinion and I gave it.

Mr. E. Evans: The right hon. Gentleman has attributed to me something that I did not say. I did not complain about the right hon. Gentleman being consulted, but I asked when he was consulted. It

is no use attributing to me things I have never said.

Mr. Morrison: It is all on the record—I hope correctly. My hon. and learned Friend said that I had interfered with the Ministry of Information. He clearly implied that this decision was my decision. He ought not to run away from the statement he made. Let him withdraw it by all means, but he ought not to run away from it. The decision was properly the decision of the Minister concerned, and that Minister was free to disagree with me. It is implied further that the Minister of Information was acting in a spirit of camaraderie with me in this matter—that it was a case of one Minister helping another out of a hole. I was not in a hole. Would the world have come to an end if this broadcast had been delivered? Would the world come to an end if many other matters in this House were discussed in one way or another? There are heaps of things that come before Ministers which are not going to involve the continuance or discontinuance of the world. Ministers have, however, to face the questions that are put day by day in this House or otherwise, and they have to be answered, and this was one which was answered.
The Minister took the view that it would be wrong for that broadcast to proceed. If the alternative argument is pleaded that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Information was afraid to disagree with the Home Secretary, then any one who knows the right hon. Gentleman will know that he is not afraid to disagree with anybody. He was for a long time a private Member of this House before he was a Minister and everybody knows that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Information had opinions of his own and was never afraid to express them and that if he disagreed with other opinions he would disagree and act accordingly, as he was entitled to do. I could have discussed the matter depart-mentally with him or have taken it higher up if I had thought it worth while. In the absence of my right hon. Friend— because of temporary sickness which we all regret—I wish to say that he himself had requested that this Debate should take place later, so that he could be present, and I am sure that he would not be afraid to disagree with the Home Secretary. I really think that a mountain has been made out of a molehill in this busi-


ness. There was at the beginning of the Debate and at Question time a sort of feeling that the whole freedom of the British people, the British Broadcasting Corporation and the British Press was coming to an end, as a result of the wicked activities of the present Home Secretary. Too much has been made of this matter. It is not such a vital matter as all that, despite the fact that some hon. Members have some strong views on Regulation 18B and some, not all those who have taken part in the Debate, will use every opportunity to discuss anything regarding it.

Mr. Silverman: Does the right hon. Gentleman complain of that?

Mr. Morrison: No, not in the least. I am only pointing out the angle that certain Members have upon the matter. This is not material but it was said, in Debate, that following the recent Parliamentary Debate I was well reported in the newspapers and that the critics were not. I am not responsible for that, as I think the House will agree. In any case, the speeches of the hon. Member for Graves-end (Sir I. Albery) and the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby) were well reported and weeks before that Debate began I was being chased in the country by representatives of a number of newspapers including certain papers of a Socialistic character who were very critical on this Regulation. You cannot always have your own way in the Press. There was a Liberal newspaper in the North saying almost every day quite untruly that the Defence Regulation had been so amended and that the Government meant that there would be an appeal to the courts. To say that the Government have had favourable and preferential treatment at the hands of the Press is not quite the case. It is not usual for a Government to get preferential treatment from the Press who rather like to criticise the Government, and it is not true that we have had preferential treatment from the B.B.C. I am sorry to say that I did not hear the broadcast of my hon. Friend the Member for Clay Cross (Mr. Ridley). It has been implied that he went out of his way to be very partial to me. As I understand it. Members of all parties give this Parliamentary sketch broadcast from time to time and they are expected to be as impartial as Members of Parliament can be. No one, I am sure, would

think that this broadcast was a scheme on the part of the Government, so that my hon. Friend could say a good word for me.

Mr. Bevan: The right hon. Gentleman's cheek is sticking out.

Mr. Morrison: What charge is the hon. Gentleman making?

Mr. Bevan: It is obvious that the right hon. Gentleman is talking with a very large tongue in a very distended cheek.

Mr. Morrison: Then the hon. Gentleman implies that I or some other member of the Government arranged with the hon. Member for Clay Cross to do this broadcast so that Ministers could get publicity for themselves. What else can he mean?

Mr. Bevan: It has never been known that any person recognised as a critic of the Government should make a broadcast.

Mr. Morrison: That is another line. What I am saying is that it was an accident that my hon. Friend happened to be making that Parliamentary sketch broadcast that week-end. The hon. Member has said that I was speaking with my tongue in my cheek—

Mr. Bevan: You were.

Mr. Morrison: The only deduction I could draw I did draw. In any case, I do not think there is anything to get "het up" about. This matter had to do with an impartial broadcast; the Ministry of Information formed the prima facie view that it was not an impartial broadcast; they asked our view and we gave it and they themselves came to the conclusion which they did, having been under no obligation to me.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Dennis Herbert): It is necessary that the Sitting should be suspended for five minutes.

Silting suspended.

On resuming—

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," again proposed.

Earl Winterton: I have a suggestion to make to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, and through you, Mr. Speaker, to the House, which may have


the effect of curtailing the discussion and bringing it to. an end. I am authorised to put the case on behalf of several of my hon. Friends on both sides of the House with whom I have had an opportunity of communicating during the suspension, and to inform the Home Secretary—I think that he cannot, in fact, refuse—that we who are interested in this matter, about which I knew nothing until I came into the House and was shown the document by my hon. Friend, will seek an opportunity as early as possible in the New

Year of discussing the whole matter on a Motion to reduce the salary of the Minister of Information. I think it right to say that some of us will certainly put down a Motion to reduce his salary and wish to have a full dress Debate. I do not propose to deal with the right hon. Gentleman's speech—

Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present—

The House was adjourned till the next Sitting Day.